IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.L.P..No. 294 of 2011() -------------------------- ST.326/2008 of J.M.F.C. - II, ETTUMANUR .................... PETITIONER (S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- K.P.SANTHOSH, AGED 37, KANNAMPURACKAL HOUSE, PUNNATHURA WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUKESH P.T., S/O. THANKAPPAN, PARAPPILLIL, MANNANAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MINI JACOB, KUNNIL HOUSE, MULLUSSERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.JACOB E SIMON FOR R1 SRI.JOSEPH MATHEW (VALUMMEL) FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ------------------------ Crl.L.P.No.294 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated 7th April, 2011 O R D E R This petition is for special leave to file appeal against order of acquittal. 2. Petitioner is the complainant. He filed a complaint before the Magistrate court alleging offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. To prove his case, power of attorney to complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of accused DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 to D12 were marked. Accused denied the allegations and contended that she had paid more than what was due from her. She filed a written statement explaining how the cheque happen to come to the hands of complainant. 3. On consideration of evidence trial court found that complainant did not mount the box to speak about various facts about which, he has personal knowledge. The court below alsofound that the version given by PW1 that huge amount was kept in the possession complainant, without it being deposited is quite unbelievable. The relevant portion of judgment is extracted hereunder: Crl.L.P. No.294/11 2 “Case of the complainant is that he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused. It is no where stated in the complaint nor PW1 has deposed as to what was the relationship between the complainant and the accused so as to make him lend the above huge amount. There is no satisfactory explanation from PW1 as to the source from where the complainant had arranged the above amount to be paid to the accused. PW1 stated that complainant used to keep some money in his possession. Such an explanation is difficult to digest. There is no reason as to why the complainant should keep such a large amount with him without depositing the same in a bank which would fetch him interest. All the circumstances in the case coupled with the fact that the complainant did not come to depose or to face the cross examination creates a doubt in the mind of the court regarding the version in the complaint.” I do not find any reason to reverse the above findings. Those are only reasonable. On going hough the impugned order, and on hearing the petitioners counsel, I am satisfied that there is no ground to grant leave. Petitioner's counsel was not able to substantiate that the findings are perverse, unreasonable or infirm on any ground. This petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou. // True copy //