IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1255 OF 2002() ------------------------------ {C.C.NO.229/1999 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, NADAPURAM} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DE FACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------ MANNAMPOYIL MOIDU, S/O.KUNJAMMED, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT PIRAKIL HOUSE, P.O.AROOR, (VIA), KAKKATTIL. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SAJI SRI.P.M.MUHAMMED RAHAZ RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. P.V.ASHRAF, `PULIYAMVEETTIL', S/O.MOIDU HAJI, AGED 30 YEARS, AROOR AMSOM, PERUMUNDASSERRY DESOM, P.O.AROOR, (VIA) KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.1255 of 2002 ------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009. O R D E R The de facto complainant in C.C.No.229/99 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nadapuram, is the petitioner herein. 2. The accused was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and proceeded to acquit the accused. The State has not come up in appeal. Instead, the de facto complainant has filed this revision petition. 3. I heard learned counsel on both sides. 4. The case of the prosecution was that the accused, who is none other than the nephew of the de facto complainant, was staying along with him in Beharain, where the complainant was employed. The accused had returned to India in November, 1996 and it CRL.R.P.No.1255 of 2002 :: 2 :: is alleged that he has stolen two cheques of the complainant relatable to his NRI account. That the accused had, in collision with the bank manager, by filling up Exts.P1 and P2 cheques, encashed Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively on 25.12.1996 and 29.11.2996 and proceeded to appropriate the proceeds thereof. 5. The trial court declined to accept the testimony of PW.2, to the effect that the accused had come to India in November 1996 after taking two cheque leaves from the cheque book of the complainant in Beharain and thereafter proceeded to forge the signature of the complainant in the cheque leaves for the purpose of encashment. The trial court had found that the best evidence possible, insofar as the prosecution is concerned, was to prove that the complainant had not come to India in November 1996. There was no attempt to prove this. This could have been proved by producing the passport of the CRL.R.P.No.1255 of 2002 :: 3 :: complainant, The fact that even according to the complainant, the accused was staying with him and the accused was none other than his Nephew was taken note of by the trial court. The parties are closely related to each other. There was nothing to show that the cheques were not issued in favour of the accused. The existence of some enmity between the family of the de facto complainant and the accused and the fact the complainant had filed a suit against the father of the accused and he had lost the case, and the contention of the complainant that an appeal was still pending were also taken note of by the court below and in my view, rightly so. 6. After having gone though the evidence and having heard counsel on both sides and having perused the order of acquittal, I am of the view that the order of acquittal passed by the court below cannot be considered as perverse or otherwise resultant upon any illegality. CRL.R.P.No.1255 of 2002 :: 4 :: The incident is alleged to have taken place in November 1996. The parties are close relatives. I do not think that the materials on record are adequate to persuade this court to interfere with the order of acquittal. Accordingly, finding that the revision is bereft of merit, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge