IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2007 / 25TH ASHADHA 1929 Crl.L.P..No. 488 of 2007() -------------------------- CC.721/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ,ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- M.S.ARIF, S/O SAIDU MUHAMMED, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.PEER MOHAMED KHAN RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------ 1. MUHAMMED DILAWAR, S/O BAVA, PULIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.KAMMAPPU-R2 THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.THANKAPPAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL. L.P. NO. 488 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007 O R D E R This petition for special leave to appeal is filed against the judgment in C.C. No.721 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Erattupetta. 2. The case of the complainant was that towards repayment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- due to him, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant which when presented to the bank for encashment was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. After complying with the statutory provisions regarding notice etc. , the complaint was filed. To prove the case against the accused, the complainant himself was examined as PW.1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were produced. On the side of the defence, the accused was examined as DW.2 and the Manager of the bank was examined as DW.1 and Exts.D1 to D9 were produced. On closing the evidence of the complainant, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Denying the prosecution allegation, the first respondent - accused stated that he used to keep cheques in his car of which the petitioner - CRL.L.P.NO.488/2007 2 complainant was the driver and that one of the cheques was taken and misused by the complainant. Considering the entire evidence, the trial court found that the complainant failed to prove the case against the accused and hence acquitted him. 3. The trial court after considering the evidence found that the petitioner was working as driver in the car of the accused and that one of the cheques kept in the car was misused by the complainant. The trial court relied on Exts.D1 to D9 to come to this conclusion. Ext.D8 was a complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner alleging that one of the cheques kept in his car was taken by the petitioner. Further, DW.1, the Manager of the bank had given evidence to the effect that the signature contained in Ext.P1 cheque was different from the specimen signature of the accused in Ext.D1. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. Hence, the impugned judgment requires no interference. The Crl. Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE) sp/ CRL.L.P.NO.488/2007 3