IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.L.P..No. 216 of 2011() -------------------------- CC.446/2004 of J.M.F.C.,KATTAKADA .................... LEAVE PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ JAYAKUMAR,S/O.MANIYAN, AGED 39 YEARS,R/AT VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.GANESH KUMAR SMT.K.I.KAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND THE STATE ------------------------------------ 1. REGHUNATH,S/O.LATE BALAN,AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT 'KARUNYA',IRATTAKALUNGU,MALAYINKIL PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 571. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECTUOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl. L.P. No. 216 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this 25th day of March, 2011 . ORDER This petition is filed for grant of special leave to file appeal against an order of acquittal. 2. The petitioner is the complainant. He filed a complaint against first respondent before the Magistrate Court alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). 3. To prove the case, petitioner examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exts.P1 to P6 on its side. On an analysis of the evidence, the Magistrate Court found that petitioner failed to prove that the cheque was created, made or drawn by the accused. The first respondent was acquitted and hence this petition. 4, Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is contradictory finding in the impugned order. The trial court found that the signature in the cheque is admitted. At the Crl.L.P.216/11] 2 same time, it is stated that execution of the cheque is not proved. 5. On hearing petitioner's counsel and on going through the impugned judgment, I do not find anything perverse in the findings. The trial court has shown reasons why mere signature in the cheque will not constitute execution. The relevant portion in paragraph 12 of the impugned order is extracted as under: “12. This is a case in which the accused has denied the transaction and his signature in Ext.P1 cheque. So, it is important to see whether Ext.P1 cheque is duly executed by the accused. From the evidence adduced by the complainant nothing is brought except the fact the accused has ut his signature in presence of the complainant. Mere presence of his signature on Ext.P1 cheque does not amount to admission of the execution of Ext.P1 cheque. In this aspect, I would like to rely upon the ruling laid down in Birbal Singh v. Hasphoot Khan (AIR 197 A11.23), wherein it was held that execution of documents consists of, signing of document written out, read over and understood and does not consist of merely signing of a blank paper. In Thakurlal v. Ramadhar (1968 ALJ 480), it is held that mere admission of putting of signature and thumb mark on a blank sheet of paper is not admission of execution of the document.” Crl.L.P.216/11] 3 6. Learned counsel for petitioner is not able to establish that the above findings are wrong, improper or perverse. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant leave to file appeal. This petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.