IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 733 of 1999 CRA.174/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: RAJASEKHARAN NAIR S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI KOTTAVILA VEEDU, KANNANCODU ALAYAMON VILLAGE, PATANAPURAM TALUK (APPELLANT HERIN, RESPONDENT IN CRL.A.NO.174/97 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM AND THE COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO.144/96 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I PUNALUR) BY ADV. SRI.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR(VARINJAM) SRI.T.R.ASWAS RESPONDENTS: 1. K.GOPI, KOCHUVILA VEEDU KUZHIMATHICAD, THALAVOORKONAM, KOLLAM 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (1st RESPONDENT IS THE ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.144/96 OF THE JFCM I PUNALUR AND APPELLANT IN CRL.A.174/97 OF SESSIONS COURT) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No.733 OF 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant submits that publication could not be effected, though such a direction was issued by this court. In other words, the appellant has not taken steps to serve notice on the respondent. However, I have gone through the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court and perused the relevant records. 2. The case of the appellant/complainant was that respondent No.1/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on September 24, 1995 and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated March 5, 1996 in discharge of the said debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Though a statutory demand notice was issued, the accused had failed to discharge the debt. Hence the complaint. Crl.A.No.733 OF 1999 :: 2 :: 3. PWs1 and 2 were examined on the side of the appellant/complainant and Exts.P1 to P7 were also marked on his side. DW1, the Bank manager was examined and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence. The trial court accepted the case of the complainant and found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,10,000/- with a default sentence. It was further directed that if the amount of fine was recovered from the accused, the complainant shall be paid Rs.1,05,000/-. 4. The above order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the accused before the Sessions court. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the above order and acquitted the accused holding that the evidence adduced by the complainant was not sufficient enough to hold the accused guilty. The learned Judge took the view that the case of the complainant was inconsistent and unclear. It was also held that Ext.P1 cheque was not supported by consideration Crl.A.No.733 OF 1999 :: 3 :: particularly, since there was no independent corroborative evidence to substantiate the case of the complainant. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the order impugned, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case in which this court can interfere. There is no merit in the appeal and therefore it is dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.A.No.733 OF 1999 :: 4 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No.733 OF 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Dated 4th Feb. 2008