IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.L.P..No. 159 of 2009() -------------------------- CC.279/2007 of J.M.F.C.-III, KOTTARAKAKARA CC.1394/2006 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ P.K.RAJAN, PUNNALA VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. CAESAR, OWNER OF NISHA LUNGIES CENTRE, MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTARAKKARA, FROM POONAYATHU VEEDU, PANTHRANDU MURI NAGAR, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.L.P.NO.159 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal in C.C.No.279/2007 of JFCM-III, Kottarakkara. The complaint is filed on the basis that the accused had issued a cheque for Rs.23,000/= towards the discharge of a liability which when presented for encashment, returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds. The court below found that the complaint is not maintainable for the reason that the complaint is filed by a private individual and the cheque is issued in the name of the KTC. In order to convince my conscience, I requested the learned counsel to hand over a copy of the private complaint. I had perused the complaint. Except for the recital that there is a description that he is the Manager of the KTC, there is nothing to show that the transaction is between the KTC and the accused. It is specifically recited that the cheque had been given to the complainant. The complainant is an individual. There is no 2 Crl.LP.No.159/09 recital in the complaint that the transaction is with the company and the cheque is issued by the company and that the complainant is presenting the complaint against the company. A perusal of the complaint would only show that it is a personal transaction between the complainant and the accused. But the document relied upon is a cheque which is issued in the name of the KTC. So, there is no personal debtor or creditor relationship and therefore, the court below was absolutely justified in holding that the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with and so the petition seeking to grant leave is rejected. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 3 Crl.LP.No.159/09 4 Crl.LP.No.159/09 beat