IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1690 of 2010() ------------------------ ST.21/2010 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRAST CLASS - II, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------- M/S.MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD., (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSETS FINANCE LTD.)NORTH PARAVUR BRANCH,ADAM PLAZA,NEAR MUNICIPAL OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR,REPRESENTED BY ASST.MANAGER GEO JACOB,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.C.V.JACOB CHELATTU HOUSE,NEERICODE PO,ALANGAD , ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.C.POULOSE SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. ABDUL SATHAR,S/O.T.S.HANEEFA,AGED 27 YEARS,THOPPIL HOUSE,MANJALY,MANNAM PO 686 561. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.1690 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 3rd September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the complainant who filed a complaint against the first respondent alleging offence under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since the accused was acquitted after trial. 2. According to complainant, the accused availed of a loan from the complainant company, for the purpose of purchasing a motor cycle. In discharge of the debt, he issued a cheque (Ext.P3). The cheque was dishonoured on presentation to the bank and hence, a lawyer notice was issued, demanding payment. The amount was not paid, in spite of the notice and hence, the complaint was filed. 3. Evidence was adduced by the complainant and he was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P10 were also marked. The accused denied execution and his liability to pay. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial court found that the complainant has no consistent case and that the accused has not issued Ext.P3 cheque in discharge of the legally enforceable debt towards the CRA NO.1690/10 2 complainant. According to the accused, he was only a guarantor to one of his friends for the purchase of the vehicle through the complainant-company and he issued three blank cheques, as guarantee. One of such cheques was misused by the complainant. He did not owe any money to the complainant company is the contention. 4. Learned counsel for appellant argued that as per the complaint, the accused was only a guarantor, but, while filing the proof affidavit, a mistake was committed and it was stated therein that the accused himself had availed of the loan. It is also submitted that accused has no case that he had not issued Ext.P3 cheque. He did not dispute his signature in cheque. But these submissions cannot be accepted in the light of what is observed in the impugned judgment. It is seen from the impugned order that the accused has taken up a case that he issued three blank cheques, as security and a cheque was forged and fabricated and produced before the court (vide paragraph 4 of the order). When these observations were brought to the notice of learned counsel for the appellant, he was not able to substantiate that the above findings are wrong or not consistent with the materials on record. CRA NO.1690/10 3 5. On going through the impugned order, it is clear that the court below found that the complainant has an inconsistent case and this appears to be correct. Nothing was pointed out to hold that the above finding is unsustainable. Therefore, the complainant has not proved the case as alleged in the complaint, whereas, he came forward with an inconsistent case at the time of evidence that the accused himself had borrowed the amount, though his case in the complaint was that the amount was borrowed by the friend of the accused. The complainant did not take any steps to clarify the so called mistake committed, prior to the passing of the judgment. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any material on record to show that the findings are wrong. Hence, there is no ground to admit this appeal. Appeal is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs