IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRL.A.No. 2149 of 2010(C) ------------------------ (CC.1076/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR) .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ AJITH.K.K., AGED 34, S/O.KUNJITTY, KOLLARA HOUSE, PERINJANAM. (REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEAF N' CARE). BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE --------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJEEV, AGED 36, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, CHATHANATH HOUSE, MARATHAMKOD, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK K. HEMA, J ---------------------- Crl. A.No. 2149 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal arise from the order of acquittal. 2. Appellant filed a complaint against first respondent alleging offence u/s. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation that the accused owed Rs.15,000/- to the complainant firm towards the products purchased by him and that he issued cheque dated 15.7.2008 for the discharge of the said amount. The cheque on presentation was dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. A lawyer notice was issued to the accused but he issued a reply notice stating false contentions. No amount was paid. Hence the complaint was filed. 3. Appellant examined PW1 and 2 on his side and also marked Ext.P1 to P8. Accused denied all the allegations and also execution of Ext.P1 cheque. He also contended that there was no liability to be discharged. 4. The trial court found that there was every reason to accept the case of the accused that Ext.P1 is not supported by Crl.A. No.2149/10 2 consideration and it was issued only as a security for the distributorship between complainant and accused. The court has relied upon various admissions made by PW1, the complainant. The trial court also found that PW1 has not produced any document to prove how the liability of Rs.15,000/- is created and what are the products purchased. The court held as follows: The defence of the accused is that Ext.P1 is one among the cheque which he has entrusted with the complainant firm while he was working as a distributor of the complainant firm. Accused has not denied the signature and account number bears on Ext.P1 cheque. The definite case of the accused is that Ext.P1 is not issued by him in favour of the complainant firm towards the discharge of any liability as claimed in the complaint. During cross examination of PW1 it was deposed by PW1 that at the time of giving products to the distributor, cheques were obtained by the firm towards the transactions. According to him Ext.P1 cheque was given in April 2008. According to him, the cheques were issued in March, 2008. He deposed that as accused has not remitted the amount in time, he was removed from the distributorship of the complainant firm. According to him the distributorship was not cancelled. On the other hand, the complainant firm has stopped the distribution of the products to the accused, due to irregular payments by the accused. He has admitted that in CC.506/2008 he was examined before this court and during that time he has admitted that only Ext.P1 cheque produced in that case was obtained from the accused. If Ext.P1 cheque of the present case was also obtained to the complainant firm in March, why he has deposed in that manner in Crl.A. No.2149/10 3 CC.506/2008 would be definitely create doubt with respect to the case of the complainant and PW1 has not given any satisfactory explanation for the same. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and on going through the impugned order, I did not find any reason to interfere with the same. There is no impropriety or infirmity in the order passed, and I am not inclined to admit this appeal. This appeal is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.