IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 CRL.A.No. 626 of 2011() ------------------------------- ST.1625/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM ......................................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- P.T.SAJI, S/O.THOMAS, PARAYIL VEEDU, RAJAKKANDOM KARA, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------------- 1. JIYO THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, ATHIKARATHIL VEEDU, KAVADI KARA (OWNER OF GALAXY WORKSHOP, NEDUMKANDOM), IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A SALIM THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- Crl.Appeal.No.626 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated 25th May, 2011 J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal. 2. Appellant is the complainant. According to him accused issued a cheque for Rs.2,05,000/- towards the liability which he owed to complainant. But the cheque was dishonoured on presentation to the bank due to insufficiency of fund. In spite of lawyer notice demanding payment, he did not pay the amount and hence the complainant. 3. To prove the prosecution case PW1 was examined and Ext.P1 to P5 were marked. Accused denied execution and transaction. Trial court on analysis of the evidence found that case set up by complainant is improbable. 4. Heard petitioners counsel. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that trial court found that complainant has no source of income, but it is evident that he was getting Rs.15,000/- per month. On going through the impugned order I Crl.A. No.626/11 2 find that trial court has on sound and valid reasons entered the finding that case set up by complainant is not probable. In paragraph 5, the following observations and findings are entered. “5. The accused denied of having borrowed the sum of Rs.2,05,000/- from the complainant and the same was repaid in150 days. The accused has maintained a consistent case. The suggestions put to the complainant during the cross examination as well as the statements made by the accused at the time of his examination under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C are in conformity with each other. The evidence of complainant was seriously challenged by the accused. The accused has challenged the financial capacity of the complainant to lent the sum of Rs. 2,05,000/-. It has come out in evidence that the monthly income of th complainant is only Rs.15,000/-. It is the evidence of complainant that the money which was kept by him for constructing his house was given to the accused. In this juncture the evidence let in by the complainant casts some doubt with regard to the transaction. It is quite improbable, in the normal course of conduct of an ordinary prudent man to lend a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-, which was kept for the construction of his house, to someone without any guaranty. Through the cross examination of PW1 the accused has brought out the probability of the transaction as narrated by the complainant, which resulted in the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused. 6. The evidence of the complainant regarding transaction does not appear to be acceptable in the light of the facts and Crl.A. No.626/11 3 circumstances of the case.” 5. I do not find that the above findings are improbable and perverse and hence there is no ground to admit this appeal. This petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou. //True copy // P.A to Judge.