IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 636 of 2002() --------------------------------- ST.844/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- M/S. HEMAMBIKA, HIRE PURCHASE AND LEASING (P) LTD., PALGHAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. S. SIVAPRASAD, S/O. V.A. SUBRAMANIAN 30/34 VALIYAVEEDU, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALGHAT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMANAND K.B. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.A. No. 636 of 2002 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Appellant is the complainant in S.T.Case No.844 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- I, Palakkad. In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Magistrate dated April 25, 2002 dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant, as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the trial court, was that the accused availed a loan of Rs.33,000/- to purchase a Bajaj Calibar scooter under a hire purchase agreement dated May 3, 1999 agreeing to remit the amount in monthly instalments, that the accused remitted the first instalment but defaulted the subsequent instalments, that towards that amount he issued the cheque Ext.P1, dated December 29,1999 for Rs.14,240/- drawn on the Federal Bank, Palakkad, which when presented for collection was CRA.636/2002 2 returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the accused in the bank and that in spite of notice Ext.P4 dated January 10,2000, the accused did not re-pay the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the offence. The accused on appearance before the Magistrate, pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the complainant. When the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, he denied the entire transaction. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that Ext.P1 cheque was issued as a security on the date of the agreement and that the accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable CRA.636/2002 3 Instruments Act and dismissed the complaint. The complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said finding of the trial court. 4. When the appeal came up for hearing to day, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter has been settled and that he is not pressing the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn. CRA.636/2002 4 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.A.No. 636 of 2002 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= JUDGMENT 31 st day of January, 2011