IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 738 of 2002() -------------------------------- CC.78/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- KOCHURANI JOSE, CHATHAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM BHAGOM, THODUPUZHA P.O., REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C.V. JOSE, CHATHAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM BHAGOM, THODUPUZHA P.O. BY ADVS. MR.BABU S. NAIR MR.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------- 1. K.S. SHIJU, KALANGOTTU TOWERS, NORTH END, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY ADV. MR V.V.SIDHARTHAN FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.738 OF 2002 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment rendered by the C.J.M, Thodupuzha in C.C..No.78/2000. It was a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, which had ended in acquittal. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/= and had issued a cheque, which when presented for encashment, returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter notice had been issued and prosecution initiated. On the other hand, the accused would contend that the husband of the complainant had purchased two acres of land. The accused had resigned from the firm and he had conducted an institution Thrisul vision and there was an agreement to obtain permission for the broadcasting of the serials and a document was executed. The trial court found that there was an understanding to provide land for cashew cultivation and according to the complainant, the amount was advanced for that purpose. But it is very clearly seen that it is not correct 2 Crl.A738/02 and by virtue of Ext.D2, land had been registered in the name of the complainant and there is nothing before the court to show that he had been handed over the possession and further that he had given back the land. So, the purpose for which it is stated is totally not correct and proper. In that backdrop, the trial court was prepared to accept the defence version. I find that it has been done correctly and it does not call for any interference. Therefore, the Criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 3 Crl.A738/02 4 Crl.A738/02 beat