IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.L.P..No. 469 of 2011(Y) --------------------------- ST.2593/2008 of J.M.F.C.,KOTTAYAM ................... PETITIONER (S): ---------------------------- BINU.P.P., PANDARAKKUNNEL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. V.M.GIRIJA, WORKING AT C.M.DIVISION, K.S.E.B.PALLOM, PALLOM P.O., KOTTAYAM NOW RESIDING AT E.B.QUARTER G.2, PALLOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682 035. ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- Crl.L.P.No.469 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated 22nd June, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed for leave to file appeal against an order of acquittal. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against first respondent alleging offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. To prove the case, she examined herself as PW1 marked Ext.P1 to P6. Accused took up a defence that a blank cheque was obtained by complainant and that was misused by complainant in this case. Accused did not admit execution of cheque. 3. Trial court after consideration of evidence found that only evidence to prove prosecution case is interested evidence of PW1. Trial court held that only photocopy of the cheque was produced. In paragraph 5, it was held as follows: “Moreover at the time of examination of PW1 only a photocopy of the cheque was produced and the accused was not given a chance to show the original cheque to PW1 and to confront PW1 on the aspects of execution. This also does not appear to be a proper method. If there is any difference in the colour of ink or on nature of writings, original itself should be confronted with PW1. Even though the original cheque was produced later, no steps taken to Crl.L.P. No.469/11 2 formally admit the same in evidence. Mere production of documents will not amount to admission of the same in evidence. It has to be noted that the defence case suggested is that the blank cheque was obtained which was misused in this case.” 4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the original of the cheque was produced in the court. It is also submitted that no question was put by PW1 when photocopy was marked. On going through the observations and findings, which is quoted above, I do not find any perversity which call for any interference. It is clear from the impugned order that this is a case where original cheque was not brought in evidence as per law. Other reasons are also stated by court to acquit the accused. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings. Trial court found evidence is not convincing regarding execution of cheque. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant leave. This petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou. // True copy //