IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1352 of 2003() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.24/2003 Dated 06/06/2003 CC.497/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- SAINULLABDEEN, S/O.ISMAIL PILLAI RAWTHER, KALEELUVILA VEEDU, EDATHARA, KALANJOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MR.K.V.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMINABEEVI, W/O. RAHIM, T.K.M.HOUSE, (ATTUPURAYIL), EDATHA, KALANJOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.1352 OF 2003 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the JFCM-III, Punalur in C.C.No.497/1998. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.One lakh and had issued a cheque towards the discharge of the liability, which when presented for encashment, returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter prosecution has been launched. The case of the defence is that she had only borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and the same was repaid. But misusing the blank cheque issued to one Kalam, the cheque has been forged and action initiated. The trial court had considered the matter in detail. DW1 - an advocate, who had interfered in the matter had been examined. It is deposed that only Rs.10,000/= was borrowed and according to him that there was an amount of Rs.67,000/= outstanding with one Kalam and an agreement has been entered into between PW1 2 Crl.A.No.1352/03 and the accused. On perusal it would reveal that Rs.10,000/= was paid and the balance amount was only Rs.57,000/=. There is also a recital in Ext.D1 that PW1 had agreed to return the cheque and the signed blank papers. So, the court on analysis of the materials arrived at a decision that there had never been a transaction for Rs.One lakh between the accused and the complainant and as execution of Ext.P7 has not been denied the recital therein that blank signed cheque had been given also stood established. I do not find any mistake committed by the court below in rejecting the case of the complainant. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 3 Crl.A.No.1352/03 4 Crl.A.No.1352/03 beat