IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.L.P..No. 322 of 2011() -------------------------- ST.276/2009 of J.M.F.C. - III, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- HARIHARAN, SAROJINI MANDIRAM, KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.N.A.JOHN JACOB SRI.P.SANJAY SHENOI RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: ------------------------------- 1. PHILIP K.E., PROPRIETOR, M/S.PHOEBE ENTERPRISES, MATHILIL P.O., KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.L.P. No.322 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this 24th May, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed for grant of leave to file appeal against an order of acquittal. 2. Petitioner is the complainant. The case of the complainant is that Ext.P1 cheque was issued for Rs. 2, 92,860/- in favour of the complainant towards his liability. It was dishonoured by bank for the reason 'exceeds arrangement' and inspite of notice the amount was not returned. Hence, the complaint. 3. To prove the prosecution case, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. Accused did not adduce any evidence. On consideration of the evidence and the rival contentions, the trial court held as follows: “The complainant's case is that the accused owed Rs.2,92,860/- towards printing charges and commission on printing diaries for the accused. The complainant had been cross-examined and he states that his transaction had been included in a companies return of income tax. 2 The entire business transaction details are with the company and infact he had filed this complaint for the company as its representative. In the complaint, it seems that the amounts had been owed to the complainant in the personal transactions. There is no mention about the involvement of the company in the matters.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has evidence to prove that the accused owes money to the complainant and an opportunity may be given to him. I do not think that any opportunity is going to improve the case of the complainant, since from his own admission the liability stood for the company and not to complainant. The entire business dealings are with the company and the complainant admitted that he filed the complaint only as a representative of the company. The complainant has no case that the complaint was filed on behalf of the company or that the cheque was issued for discharge of the liability which arose towards the company. On the other hand, the complainant claims that he personally has to get more than Rs.90,000/- from accused though he candidly admitted that the liability stood for the company. 3 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no mention about Annexure-C in the order, which is a document issued by the accused that the amount will be discharged within a particular date. However, he admitted that the said document was not produced before the trial court. 6. On going through the order under challenge, particularly, the findings of the trial court under point no.1, I do not find any reason to interfere with the above findings. Learned counsel was not able to substantiate that those findings are wrong or perverse. Hence, I am not inclined to grant leave. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEAMA, JUDGE. Krs.