IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 CRL.A.No. 2036 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.57/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,CHALAKUDY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT. ------------------------------------- E.N.BABY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. EDATHIPARAMBIL NARAYANAN, PALISSERY DESOM, ANNAMANADA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE. ------------------------------- 1. JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, 6/204, MANISSERY HOUSE, THIRUR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.2036 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 21st October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal arises from an order of acquittal. 2. The appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant is the Managing Partner of a firm doing business in edible oil. The accused is a dealer and he had transaction with the complainant. He owed Rs.2,20,000/- to the appellant and a cheque was drawn from the account maintained by him with the Bank for discharge of the said amount. The cheque was dishonoured on presentation before the Bank on the ground that payment was stopped. A notice was issued to the accused, calling upon to pay the amount, but no payment was made though the notice was served. Therefore, the complaint was filed, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The complainant examined PW1 and PW2 and marked Exts.P1 to P11. On the side of the accused, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. Exts.X1 and X2 Crl.Appeal No.2036/10 2 series were also marked. On an analysis of the evidence in detail, the trial court found that the complainant utterly failed to prove the execution as well as handing over of Ext.P2 cheque. So also, he failed to prove that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt, since it is clear that there was no transaction between the complainant and the accused. The trial court analysed the evidence in detail at page 9 of the judgment. I do not find any reason to interfere with such findings, since those are not unreasonable or perverse. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant only stated that the trial court has not entered a finding regarding execution of cheque. But, on a reading of the judgment, I find that the court has specifically entered a finding that the complainant has utterly failed to prove execution of the cheque. The trial court analysed both oral and documentary evidence to enter such finding against the appellant regarding execution. PW1 admitted in evidence that there is no document to show delivery of oil to the accused, though his case is that the amount is due on account of sale of oil. It was also found that Crl.Appeal No.2036/10 3 there was no transaction between the complainant and the accused, as alleged in the complaint, as per the evidence. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the judgment, I find no ground to admit the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs