IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2007 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1929 CRL.A.No. 605 of 2002() ----------------------- CC.330/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------- KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., K.V.TOWERS, MARAPPALAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI R.ASHOK, DO.DO. BY ADVS. SRI.PATHIRIPALLY S.KRISHNAKUMARI SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED & STATE -------------------- 1. P.SALMAJA LEELA D/O.T.V.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY PADINJARAKATHU HOUSE, 17/115, NEAR MADHUMIYA MASJID, J.M.ROAD PONNANI NAGARAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED-R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU-R2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.THANKAPPAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL. APPEAL NO. 605 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2007 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment in C.C. No.330 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - V, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The appellant - Corporation represented by the Managing Director filed the complaint alleging that the first respondent availed of a loan of Rs.95,000/-from the Corporation and issued Ext.P3 cheque towards discharge of the said liability and that the cheque in question when presented to the bank for encashment was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the first respondent. After complying with the statutory provisions, the appellant filed the complaint. To prove the case against the first respondent, the complainant examined PW.1 and produced Exts.P1 to P6. On the side of the defence, DW.1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D3 were produced. The first respondent when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations in the complaint and CRL.APPEAL NO.605/2002 2 stated that the cheque in question was issued as a security for the loan taken by her from the complainant and not towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt. On considering the entire evidence, the trial court found that the complainant failed to prove the transaction which led to the issuance of Ext.P3 cheque and acquitted the accused. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court ans notice was issued to the respondents. When the appeal came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the matter has been settled out of Court. This Court heard the appeal on merits. The trial court found that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The finding of the trial court is based on evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment requires no interference. The Crl. Appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE) sp/ CRL.APPEAL NO.605/2002 3 K.THANKAPPAN, J. CRL.A.NO.605/2002 JUDGMENT 26TH MARCH, 2007. CRL.APPEAL NO.605/2002 4