IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 CRL.A.No. 627 of 2011() ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.278/2011 Dated 30/03/2011 ST.33/2010 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRAST CLASS - II, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------- MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, CHERAI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.N.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KASAMKKOTTAM HOUSE, CHERAI. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------------- 1. V.C.DILEEP, S/O.CHACKO, VADAKKADATH HOUSE, CHERAI P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No.627 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this 24th May, 2011. JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal. 2. The complainant is the appellant. He filed a complaint against respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the N.I. Act' for short). The complaint was filed on the allegation that the complainant is a registered society represented by its secretary and the accused owed an amount of Rs.31210/- to the complainant society. Towards discharge of the said liability, accused issued a cheque for the said amount drawn on an account maintained by him. The cheque on presentation was dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient fund'. A lawyer notice was sent demanding payment. No payment was made and hence the complaint was filed. 3. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked on behalf of the complainant. The accused while questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had no transaction with the complainant but one Rajeevan had misused the cheque which was a blank signed cheque as a security. 4. The trial court, after consideration of the evidence adduced, held as follows: The evidence adduced by PW1 as well as PW2 shows that there is no whisper with regard to the execution of Ext.P1 cheque. In the proof affidavit of PW1 also he stated that accused has issued a cheque dated 14.11.2008 for an amount of Rs.31,210/- towards the discharge of his liability to the complainant. PW1 has no case that accused has put his signature in Ext.P1 in his presence issued the same towards the liability of accused alleged by the complainant. According to PW2 also he had seen the handing over of cheque by the accused. He contended that there are transaction between the complainant and accused, but he has not deposed before the court that he had seen the execution of Ext.P1. On the other hand, he deposed that he had seen the handing over of cheque by he accused. Mere handing over of cheque is not amounts to execution. The evidence adduced by PW1 shows hat he miserably failed to prove the execution of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused in discharge of his liability.” 5. I do not find any reason to interfere with the above findings which are only sound and reasonable. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to substantiate that the above findings are wrong. In the above circumstances, I find no ground to admit this appeal. This is dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.