IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.L.P..No. 485 of 2011() -------------------------- CC.347/2009 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ SUNIL KUMAR C.M., LEGAL MANAGER, MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE AND LEASING LTD., VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.VATHSALAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED OF THE STATE ----------------------------------- 1. KUNJU MUHAMMED, S/O.ABOOBAKER, 3/197-A, URUMIYAMPARAMBIL (H), KAKKUNELIL BUS STOP, THIRUVAMBADI P.O., CALICUT-673 603. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.V.SHYLAJA FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTION SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.L.P. No. 485 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of June, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed to grant leave to file appeal against an order of acquittal. 2. Petitioner filed complaint against first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After consideration of the evidence in detail, the trial court found that the complainant thoroughly failed to prove the execution of cheque. It was also found that on the relevant dates on which the cheque was allegedly executed and transaction took place, accused was not in India and he was in gulf countries. The relevant observations and findings from the impugned order can be extracted as hereunder: “12...........Even though it was suggested to PW1 during cross examination that accused was in gulf countries from 15.6.2008 till 15.07.2009, he had strongly denied the said suggestion and categorically deposed that he had seen the accused from the Naikkanal office on 19.09.2008, the date on which the cheque was alleged to have executed and issued by the accused. 13. At this context let us consider the evidence tendered by DW1. DW1 is the accused and according to him he was in gulf countries during the period between 15.6.2008 and 15.07.2009. In order to prove this aspect he had produced Ext.D1, the copy of the passport (Original passport was produced for perusal and after comparing with the copy, original was returned). Page No.6 and Page No.22 of the passport would prove the version of the accused (DW1). That means the evidence tendered by PW1 that he had seen the execution and issuance of Ext.P5 cheque on 19.9.2008 by the accused from the Naikkanal office is false......” I find no reason to interfere in the above findings, which appears to be consistent with the evidence in this case. Learned counsel for petitioner could not substantiate that the findings are wrong or perverse. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order and hence, I am not inclined to grant leave. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.