IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRL.A.No.61 of 2008 (C) ----------------------------- ORDER IN CRL.L.P.1252/2007 Dated 10/12/2007 ST.371/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-X, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- V.AJAYAKUMAR, CHANDRALAYAM, MURINJAPALAM, MCPO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. SOOJA JONES, PROPRIETOR SPECTER MOTOR DRIVING SCHOOL, BAKERY JUNCTION, PRESENTLY RESIDING C/O WILFRED KULAS, T.C.29/298, CHEPPIL HOUSE, THENGAPPURA LANE, KAITHAMUKKU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The appellant is the complainant in S.T.371/06 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-X, Thiruvananthapuram. He assails in this appeal the acquittal of the first respondent of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide Section 255 (1) of the Cr.P.C. 2. The appellant filed complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court- III, Thiruvananthapuram alleging inter alia that on 05/02/04 the first respondent borrowed from him an amount of Rs.1 lakh and in discharge of the said liability he issued Ext.P1 cheque dt.15/04/04 drawn on the Thiruvananthapuram Thampanoor branch of the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. assuring that the cheque would be honoured on presentation; that on Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -2- 15/04/04 itself he presented the said cheque for collection through his bankers namely the Cosmopolitan Hospital branch of the Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram that on 19/04/04, he got intimation that the said cheque was returned dishonoured for reason of insufficiency of funds in the account of the first respondent but with a memorandum specifying therein that the account is closed; that on 20/04/04 he caused the original of Ext.P4 notice being issued to the first respondent through lawyer under Ext.P5 postal registration receipt intimating him of the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque and that was received by the first respondent under Ext.P6 postal acknowledgment card but he has not paid up the amounts covered by the cheque either within the statutory period or ever thereafter and thereby he has committed an offence punishable Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -3- under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram before whom the complaint was filed recorded the sworn statement of the appellant and registered the complaint on the file of his Court as S.T.744/04 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-X, Thiruvananthapuram as per the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. On appearance of the first respondent in the court below pursuant to issuance of summons, he was served with copies of all relevant records in the case and he was questioned by the Magistrate reading over the particulars of the offence and explaining it to him. Thereupon, he pleaded not guilty and consequently, a trial of the case was Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -4- conducted by the court below. 5. On the side of the complainant he tendered evidence as PW1 and got marked Exts.P1 to P8. On the appellant/complainant closing his evidence the first respondent was questioned by the Magistrate under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, he generally denied all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. According to him, he had not issued any cheque to the appellant and he is seeing the appellant for the first time only in Court. He filed a written statement of defence as well wherein his contentions are inter alia that he has no acquaintance with the appellant that Ext.P1 cheque is not one issued by him to the appellant and he has not borrowed any amount from the appellant; that four signed cheque leaves had been lost from his possession during the year 2000 and on coming Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -5- to know of the loss in January, 2000 the matter was reported to the Sub Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station as also to the Manager of the Karur Vysya Bank; that further enquiries made by him revealed that the cheques were being taken away by one Krishna Kumar who used to visit the institution run by him and who is a friend of the appellant and the said Krishna Kumar has caused this complaint to be filed through the appellant and the said Krishna Kumar also has filed a similar compliant against him; and that he is residing in his house near the Law College Junction, Thiruvananthapuram and is not having any house at Nanthancode as stated by the appellant. 6. On the defence side DWs.1 to 3 were examined of whom DW3 is the first respondent himself and Exts.D1 to D8 were got marked. Ext.X1 is the certified copy of the ledger Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -6- containing the details of the Saving Bank Account in relation to the first respondent. 7. The court below considered the case in the light of the evidence adduced as aforesaid and acquitted the first respondent under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C finding him not guilty in view of its finding that the appellant has miserably failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the first respondent borrowed Rs.1 lakh from him and Ext.P1 cheque was being issued by the first respondent in discharge of the said debt due to him. 8. It is vehemently contended before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that the court below has failed to appreciate the case of the appellant in the proper perspective; that there is no convincing evidence to establish the defence case that four blank signed cheque leaves were stolen from his house as alleged; that the story of Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -7- entrustment of blank cheques with the sons of the first respondent as also the missing of the cheques on different dates etc. should not have been believed by the court below; and that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act should have been found to support the case of the appellant and establish his case alleged in the complaint. 9. PW1 is the appellant himself. He is an LIC agent. According to him, he knows the first respondent for the last ten years and he used to have consistent contact with him to persuade him to take a policy that he had gone over to the institution of the first respondent at least two or three times every month for the last ten years for the purpose of persuading the first respondent to take a policy of Rs.1 lakh, but however, he did not take policy. According to him, Krishna Kumar made mention of by the first respondent is his Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -8- close friend even from childhood days though he pleads ignorance as to whether the said Krishna Kumar was moving on close terms with the first respondent. 10. PW1 has asserted that the amount was borrowed by the first respondent on 05/02/04 and that the amount was paid to the first respondent at his house and on advancing the amount the first respondent delivered the cheque as well, and that the first respondent had asked for advancing the loan two months prior to the advancing of loan. However, he has stated that while advancing the amount there was nobody else to witness it. As regards the source of money for him to advance Rs.1 lakh to the first respondent his case is that he was having Rs.50,000/- with him and he had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his sister and it is thus that he advanced Rs.1 lakh to the first respondent. In cross Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -9- examination PW1 has stated that the first respondent was bringing over the cheque to his house duly typewritten and was signing the cheque in his presence. He has however denied the suggestion that he was filing the complaint making use of a blank signed cheque of the first respondent which his friend Krishna Kumar has passed on to him for the purpose of filing the complaint. Other than the interested testimony of the appellant as PW1, there is nothing else to establish his case of his having advanced Rs.1 lakh by way of loan to the first respondent availing also an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of loan from his sister. The sister of the appellant who is said to have advanced Rs.50,000/- so as to make up Rs.1 lakh to be advanced to the first respondent is also not examined. Though he has stated that he was having with him Rs.50,000/- which he was retaining for the purpose of Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -10- purchasing a car there is absolutely no evidence on that aspect as there is no documentary evidence to prove his having possession of so much amount with him. He has however, no case that he was drawing the amount from bank. 11. Now coming to the defence contention it is to be noticed that his definite case is that the cheques were those which were lost as early as in 2000. If the first respondent is able to show that the cheques were lost in 2000, then certainly the case of the appellant cannot be true that the cheque was issued to him on 05/02/04. To establish the contentions set up by the first respondent, he has examined DW1 the Manager of Thampanoor branch of the Karur Vysya Bank and DW2 the Sub Inspector of Museum Police Station. 12. DW1 has deposed that in relation to cheque Nos.978044 stop payment instruction was Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -11- received on 21/01/2000 and in relation to cheque Nos.978047 and 978048 stop payment instruction was received on 31/01/2000 as per the entries in the ledger copy of which is Ext.X1. He has however, not produced the stop payment instructions given for the reason that such records will not be maintained for more than five years as per the rules of the bank. Ext.P1 is cheque bearing No.978047 in relation to which according to DW1 stop payment intimation is received on 31/01/2000. DW1 is cross examined by the counsel for the appellant. DW1 has admitted in cross examination that he is Manager of that particular bank only from April, 2006 and that the entries in the Register extract of which is Ext.X1 is not made on his instructions. The suggestion put to him in cross examination that the entries in relation to stop payment were being made in the ledger on the Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -12- instructions of the first respondent has been denied by him. 13. DW2 the Sub Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station who was cited to produce two complaints sent by the first respondent to the said Police station by registered post on 20/01/2000 and 29/01/2000 has given evidence that he could not produce those complaints as the complaints could not be traced out and that for making further search he requires more time. However, he has admitted that in the petition register of the year 2000 no such complaint is recorded and that he is working in that station only for the last one month. 14. On the basis of testimony of DW2 the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that if at all complaints had been forwarded to the Police Station by registered post that would certainly find a place in the register and that the contention Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -13- advanced by the first respondent that complaints had been sent to the Police Station on 20/01/2000 and 29/01/2000 by registered post is false. 15. According to the first respondent who has tendered evidence as DW3, Ext.D1 is the complaint sent to the Police Station on 20/01/2000 in relation to cheque No.978044 and Ext.D2 is complaint in relation to missing of two more signed cheque leaves bearing Nos.978047 and 878048 of which cheque No.978047 is Ext.P1 cheque. Both in Exts.D1 and D2 reference is made of stop payment direction having been issued to the bankers of the first respondent. Ext.D3 is Postal Registration Certificate for issuance of notice by registered post to the Sub Inspector of Police, Museum and is dt.20/01/2000. Ext.D5 is Postal Acknowledgment Card whereunder the Sub Inspector of Police had received on Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -14- 22/01/2000 a complaint sent by the first respondent. Obviously that is Ext.D1 complaint dt.20/01/2000. Ext.D4 is Postal Registration Receipt evidencing issuance of a registered article by registered post to the Sub Inspector of Police on 29/01/2000 and Ext.D6 is Postal Acknowledgment Card signed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station on 31/01/2000 which is obviously in relation to Ext.D2 complaint sent under Ext.D4 postal registration receipt. 16. Similarly, Ext.D7 is postal registration receipt evidencing despatch by registered post of a postal article on 29/01/2000 to the bankers of the first respondent and Ext.D8 is postal registration receipt evidencing despatch of a registered article to the Manager of the first respondent's bank on 20/01/2000. In view of production of Postal Registration Receipts Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -15- from which despatch dates are clear and production of acknowledgment cards from which the receipt of the postal articles so despatched had been acknowledged also by the addressees, it cannot be said that the case of the first respondent that he had given intimation regarding the loss of cheque to the Sub Inspector of Museum Police Station and to his bankers is not true. If that be so, certainly the first respondent has lost possession of cheques as early as in January, 2000. The appellant has no case that there was any transaction at all between himself and the first respondent ever before 05/02/04. Hence, it cannot be believed that cheque lost four years back from the possession of the first respondent had come back to his possession and he issued that cheque to the appellant on 05/02/04 while receiving Rs.1 lakh by way of loan. It is also worthy to note in this Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -16- context that Ext.X1 shows that the first respondent has closed the account on 30/03/01 and it is still after three years that Ext.P1 is alleged to have been issued to the appellant. The case of the appellant, in the circumstances, stands highly improbabilised when there is ample evidence to establish the case of the first respondent that he had sent complaints to the Sub Inspector of Museum Police Station and also to his bankers regarding loss of three cheques from his possession of which one cheque leaf is the one used for Ext.P1. It is in this background that the genuineness of the case of the appellant has to be considered. 17. Apart from the interested testimony of PW1/the appellant there is absolutely no evidence to show that he was in possession of Rs.1 lakh to be advanced to the first respondent by way of loan and though he states Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -17- that half of that amount was being received by him as loan from his sister it is not divulged as to who that sister is and what is her financial background so as to advance so much amount to the appellant to be advanced on loan to the first respondent. In this context it would be worthwhile to cite the decision of the Apex Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008(1) KHC 410 SC). The Apex court has held in the said decision that under Section 139 of the N.I. Act there is no presumption available as regards existence of any debt or existence of any legally recoverable debt but that the presumption available in favour of the holder of the cheque is only that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability. In the instant case, as the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque is not convincingly established and by preponderance of probabilities the case of the first respondent Crl. Appeal No.61 of 2008 -18- is found to be more probable than the case of the appellant even that limited presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is not there in favour of the appellant. The result is that the acquittal of the first respondent by the court below of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act deserves to be concurred with and I do so. 18. In the result, confirming the correctness of the acquittal of the first respondent of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the court below, I dismiss this Criminal Appeal. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-