IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.L.P..No. 284 of 2009() -------------------------- ST.3517/2004 of J.M.F.C.-II,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- M/S. MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LTD., MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPPAD P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY JUNIOR ASSISTANT A.V. UNNIKRISHNAN. BY ADVS. MR.C.VATHSALAN, MR.K.RAKESH ROSHAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND THE STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.M. FAISAL, S/O. MOIDUNNI, MANDALAMKUNNATH HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYUR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.L.P.NO.284 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009 O R D E R This special leave petition is filed with a prayer to grant permission to file an appeal against the judgment of the JFCM-II, Trichur in ST.No.3517/2004. It is a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the case of the complainant that it is a non banking finance company and the accused had purchased a Suzuki bike and he had issued a cheque which when presented for encashment, returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds. On the contrary, the case of the accused is to the effect that he had entered into a hire purchase agreement and at that time, the complainant had obtained blank cheques from him and he had misused those cheques for the purpose of filing the case. The court below considered the evidence of PW1 and DW1 and also Exts.P1 to P10 and D1. A material point that was found by the court below is that the evidence is clinching before the court to show that the complainant had received two cheques bearing Nos.1223904 and 1223905. On Crl.L.P.No.284/09 2 the basis of Cheque No.1223905, a complaint has been filed as Ext.D1 as early as on 3.8.2002. The trial court found that the present case is based on cheque No.1223904 and it is filed after a period of three years and therefore, the court observed that “it is difficult to believe that the complainant, who is a commercial establishment, received a second cheque from a customer against whom it was conducting case for more than three years. It is also difficult to believe that the accused kept the cheques with him for three years for giving the same to the complainant”. The court also found that in Ext.P2 cheque the name of the payee entered using a rubber stamp and that signature is put in dark blue ink. whereas the amount is entered in light blue ink. The court also found that the pen and ink used for entering the amount and date are different. So, on an analysis of these materials, the court was prepared to accept the case of the accused that it is the blank signed cheque that has been made use of for filing a complaint under Section 138. It cannot be characterised as a proper negotiable instrument at all and therefore, I do not find any ground to find that the Crl.L.P.No.284/09 3 court below has erred and so, no permission for leave to appeal can be granted. Therefore, the Crl.L.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl