IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 116 of 2011() ----------------------- CRA.155/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC NO.328/2005 JFCM II, KASARAGOD. .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ P.S.HARIKUMAR,58 YEARS,S/O.SHEENA SHETTY,OPP. ST.JOSEPH'S CHURCH,KOTEKKANKI,KASARGOD IN APPEAL PET. ADDRESS SHOWN AS P.S.HARISH KUMAR, 57 YEARS,S/O.SHEENA SHETTY,DEREBAIL MARKET,URVA STORE,PROP.MANGALORE CHICKEN HOUSE,ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALORE,MANGALORE TALUK AND D.K.DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.LATHAKUMARI, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.J.RAMAN, STAFF NURSE, E.S.I.HOSPITAL, KADRI, SHIVABAGH, MANGALORE-575 002, D.K. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R-1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 28th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal. 2. The appellant is the complainant. He filed a complaint before the Magistrate Court, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against first respondent herein. According to appellant, the accused issued a cheque drawn on an account maintained by him with the Bank at Mangalore for Rs.62,000/- for discharge of a debt in favour of appellant. The cheque, on presentation was returned unpaid on the ground “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, a lawyer notice was issued demanding payment, but no payment was made. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. To prove the prosecution case, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The accused denied all the allegations and contended that she had no transaction with the complainant. She is a total stranger to the complainant. Ext.P1 is not supported by consideration. She had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from one Shetty and 3 signed blank cheques were handed over to him. Out of those Crl.Appeal No.116/11 2 cheques, one was misused by the complainant to file a false complaint against her. 4. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court acquitted him on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter a finding of guilt against accused. It was held by the appellate court in paragraph 12 as follows : “12. Here, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he was residing at his address given in the complaint and that he was conducting any business at Kasaragod. From the oral testimony of PW1 itself, it is brought out that the alleged transaction, ie., issue of cheque, presentation of the cheque for collection, dishonour etc. are all done at Mangalore. Further, it is brought out that the complainant has his permanent residence at Mangalore and he was doing business there.” 5. I have gone through the evidence of PW1 and I am satisfied of the findings entered into by the trial court, which are extracted above. It is clear that the appellant is a permanent resident of Mangalore. All other transactions, such as issuance of cheque, presentation, dishonour etc. are all at Crl.Appeal No.116/11 3 Mangalore. The accused is also a resident of Mangalore, but complaint is filed at Kasaragode, the motive of which must be known to the appellant himself. The trial court has also relied upon two decisions in paragraph 13 and found that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. I do not find any reason to interfere with those findings. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the address of the complainant in the complaint is that of Kasaragod. He has stated that he is residing in Kasaragode etc. But, from the evidence, it is quite clear that ration card and voters list etc. all referred to his residential address and the business address at Mangalore. I do not find any ground to admit this appeal. This appeal is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs