IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 729 of 2002() ---------------------------------- CC.232/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------- KOCHURANI JOSE, CHATHAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATOM BHAGOM, THODUPUZHA P.O., REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - C.V.JOSE, CHATHAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM BHAGOM, THODUPUZHA P.O. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------- 1. K.S.SHAIJU, KULANGOTU TOWERS, NORTH END, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31 BY ADVS.MR.V.V.SIDHARTHAN FOR R1 MR.T.K.SHAJAHAN FOR R1 MR.M.L.ABRAHAM FOR R1 MR.ELDHOSE M.VARGHESE FOR R1 MR.SREEJITH RAVEENDRAN FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.729 OF 2002 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment in C.C.No.332/2000 of the C.J.M court, Thodupuzha. It was an action initiated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It is the case of the complainant that the accused owed an amount of Rs.30,000/= for which he issued a cheque towards the discharge of the liability on 30.10.1999 which when presented for encashment, returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, prosecution was launched. The defence appears to be that he was the Director of Green Share Agro Farm India Company. The company was in the business of supplying lands for cashew cultivation. The complainant purchased two units and thus two acres were registered in the name of her husband. The accused resigned from the company on 3.11.1997 and thereafter started Thrisul vision for making T.V. serials. The complainant's husband and another man approached the accused with the assurance that they will secure approval of Doordarsan for telecasting serials since their relative is the Director of Doordarsan and 2 Crl.A.No.729/02 an agreement was entered into and the husband of the complainant did not keep up the promise. He had misused one of the cheques and launched the prosecution. In the trial court, PW1 and DW1 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 and D1 to D6 were marked. The court below found against the complainant and held that the version of the accused appears to be more probable and acceptable. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 2. Learned counsel strongly contends before me that the court below has erred in arriving at a decision and it did not apply the mind properly for arriving at the decision. In the complaint, it is not described how the amount became due to the complainant. But when examined as PW1, he had two versions in the cross examination. At one place, he would say that he had given the land for cashew cultivation and for that purpose he had advanced the amount. In another place, he would depose that a document was written in his name which has been taken back and he had been given the cheque. It is also stated by him that the property is not in his possession and no document has been registered. Ext.D3 is a document 3 Crl.A.No.729/02 which would belie the case of the complainant. It would show that the property had been registered in the name of the husband of the complainant as early as on 1995. So, the case of the complainant does not appear to be very correct. It is in this backdrop the court analysed Ext.D1 agreement as well. There was some agreement with respect to shooting and scribing of T.V. serials and it was for that purpose three cheques were handed over. It is evident that they were recorded in Ext.D5 as well. The transaction did not materilise, but the cheque has been utilized. It is in this backdrop that the contention of the accused appears to be more probable. Therefore, from the materials available and on perusal, I find that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the matter only in the correct perspective and rendered the decision which does not require interference at the hands of this Court. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 4 Crl.A.No.729/02 5 Crl.A.No.729/02 6 Crl.A.No.729/02 beat