IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAIHTA 1933 Crl.L.P..No. 337 of 2011() -------------------------- CC.257/2009 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- M/S.SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P) LTD.,REP.BY IT'S AUTHORISED AGENT,MR.JOBY CHACKO, S/O.MR.K.C.CHACKO, AGED 37, WORKING AS LEGAL CLERK ALAPPUZHA BRANCH OFFICE, R/AT KIZHAKKUMTHARA HOUSE, KAVALAM.P.O., KUNNUMMA, ALLEPPEY. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE --------------------------------------- 1. MINI SANKARAN, W/O.K.SANAKAN, VADAKKEVATTA PARAMBIL, THIRUMALA BHAGAM.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. PIN-688 540. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA ,J. ------------------------- Crl. L.P No. 337 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd May, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed for granting leave to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. 2. Complainant is the petitioner. It is a company. As per the allegations in the complaint, accused issued a cheque for Rs.35,058/- for the discharge of a debt outstanding to the complainant. Amount was not repaid even though the cheque was dishonoured. Statutory notice was issued. No reply was sent. 3. PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the accused. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial court found that the execution of the cheque was denied though the signature was admitted. Accused is the guarantor in the said transaction. She gave evidence that the entire chit amount was paid. PW1 did not no any of the details of the chitty transaction. Crl. L.P No. 337 of 2011 2 4. It is also found that the complainant is in possession of books of accounts which will show the outstanding liability but it was not produced. It was also held that there is no evidence to accused executed cheque for the amount as alleged by the complainant. 5. On hearing the petitioner's counsel, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings. Findings appear to be reasonable. Hence there is no ground to grant leave. Petition is dismissed. (Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE) ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge Crl. L.P No. 337 of 2011 3 Crl. L.P No. 337 of 2011 4