IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 289 of 2000() ----------------------------- CC.308/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ JOSE JOSEPH, CHANNACKATTUKUNNEL VEEDU, KONDOOR, ERATTUPETTA-II BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ N.T.GEORGE, NELLIMALAYIL VEETTIL, PERUVANTHANAM P.O. ERATTUPETTA BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/2/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ======================= Crl.R.P.No.289 of 2000 ========================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of the complainant in a private complaint who had sought to prosecute the respondent herein for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The court below discharged the accused under Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the complainant had failed in establishing a prima facie case against the accused which, if unrebutted would warrant his conviction. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent/accused, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. 3. The case of the complainant was that the accused who was an employee of State Bank of Travancore, Erattupetta Branch, had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated July 18, 1993 in discharge of the said debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured for the reason that the account had been closed. Crl.R.P.No.289/2000 2 4. It is on record that the complainant had initially filed C.C.No.320/1993 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was withdrawn by the complainant. The present complaint was filed thereafter, alleging inter alia that the accused had intentionally cheated him by inducing him to part with Rs.20,000/- and thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. But it was noticed by the learned Magistrate that in the previous complaint filed by the complainant he had not stated that the accused had issued a cheque to him on July 1, 1993. PW2, the Bank Manager who had been examined in the previous complaint had stated that the account of the accused had been closed on May 3, 1993 suo motu and transferred to Mundakkayam Branch on his transfer to that Branch. Taking note of this crucial aspect, the learned Magistrate found that the complainant had failed to establish that the accused had any intention to cheat him. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said finding. Anyhow the fact remains that the learned Magistrate had only discharged the accused under Section 245(1) of the Code. There is no Crl.R.P.No.289/2000 3 reason to interfere with the order impugned in this case. The criminal revision petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs