IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 Crl.L.P..No. 958 of 2010() -------------------------------------- ST.39/2009 of J.M.F.C. - II, ETTUMANUR .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ SHINOY.P.G,PALAKUZHIPPIL HOUSE, KANAKKARY.P.O,ETTUMANNOOR,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANDHYA,W/O.C.S.REGHU,CHIRAPPATTU HOUSE, THAVALAKKUZHI,ETTUMANOOR.P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.R. VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ----------------------------- Crl.L.P.No. 958 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for special leave to file appeal against order of acquittal. 2. The appellant filed a complaint against first respondent alleging offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After considering all the evidence on record, the trial court found that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. 3. On going through the order, I am satisfied that the findings of the trial court are based on sound reasonings. It was observed by the trial court that even though the facts alleged could be proved by documentary evidence, those documents are withheld without any explanation. Even to establish the fact that Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to the accused, admittedly there are entries relating to this in the account books, but those documents are not produced. 4. The case of the accused was that transaction is not Crl.L.P. No.958/10 2 proved and that complainant had no transaction with the accused and she had not issued any cheque to the complainant, but her husband had a chitty transaction with PW1 and as security PW1 had taken a blank cheque of her husband and herself. 5. Learned Magistrate observed that in the chief examination itself PW1 admitted that he is running a chitty establishment and accused has subscribed to his chitty. Trial court has also held that Ext.P1 shows that the signature is put in that cheque with another pen. I do not find any reason to grant leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.