IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.L.P..No. 486 of 2009() ------------------------------------- ST.1285/2007 of JUDICIA FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATECOURT -II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIOENR (S):COMPLAINANT -------------------- S.N.RAJENDRAN, ATTICHIRA HOUSE, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN MR.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED -------------------------- 1. REMESAN B.K., RESHMA BHAVAN, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.L.P. NO. 486 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T This petition is preferred against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II(Mobile), Kottayam in S.T.1285/07. It was a 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act case and it is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/- and towards the discharge of the liability he had issued a cheque which when presented did not get encashed, hence the prosecution. On the other hand, the case of the accused is that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and had repaid the amount and had obtained a receipt, Ext.D1. So there is no debtor-creditor relationship between the accused and the complainant. I just refer to paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Court below. It can be seen therein that the accused was examined as DW1. He had clearly spoken about the advancement of Rs.25,000/- and repayment of Rs.45,000/- and he had also produced in support of his Crl.L.P. 486 OF 2009 -2- contention, Ext.D1. For the reasons best known to the complainant DW1 was not cross-examined at all. So the evidence of DW1 remains unchallenged. Therefore the preponderance of probability of accused's case stands established by the evidence tendered by him. So one cannot find fault with the Court below for accepting the case of the accused and acquitting him u/s 256(1) Cr.P.C. Therefore the Crl.L.P. does not merit consideration and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-