IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 660 of 2009(B) ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN S.T. 202/06 DTD.29.10.08 ON THE FILE OF THE Judicial First Class Magistrate, PALA. .................... APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ GIJI ABRAHAM, W/O ABRAHAM, KULAMBUKADU VEEDU, KEERIKKODU, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S)/ ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. SIJI JOSE, S/O JOSE, AMBATTU VEEDU, PACHADY, KAIKOONTHAL, UDUMBANCHOLA, (NOW WORKING AS MANAGER, PHONE WORLD), THODUPUZHA ROAD, PALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. Appeal NO. 660 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009. J U D G M E N T This Crl. Appeal came up for admission. It is an appeal preferred against the order of acquittal in S.T.202/06 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- and towards the discharge of the liability had issued a cheque which when presented for encashment had returned with the endorsement insufficiency of funds. After issuing the statutory notice prosecution has been initiated. 2. On the other hand the defence of the accused is to the effect that he was employed in the firm of one Shaji and at the time of getting employment he had issued two blank signed cheques as security along with one promissory note and when Shaji had abandoned the business, the complainant has come into possession of one of such cheques and had filed a complaint of this nature. It has to be clearly stated in this Crl.A. 660 OF 2009 -2- case that except for the amount and the signature there is no mentioning of the name of the payee or even the word cash in the cheque. Learned counsel would contend that it is not necessary. Even if it is admitted for argument sake, here is a case where the complainant has to prove that the accused had borrowed a sum from him and towards the discharge of the liability had issued Ext.P1 cheque. Ext.P1 cheque does not show the name of the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that this person had any relationship with the accused. The contention of the complainant is that it was only towards securing a job this cheque was issued. I do not find any convincing materials available before the Court either in the form of documentary evidence or oral evidence to establish that the complainant had advanced a sum of Rs.30,000/- and that the accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque towards the discharge of the liability. When it is so, fundamental ingredients necessary to constitute the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act is absent. Therefore we need not look into the other aspect of the matter. This is the way in which Crl.A. 660 OF 2009 -3- the trial court has proceeded with and I do not find any irregularity committed by the trial court in arriving at the decision on the basis of the materials made available before it. Therefore I do not propose to admit this appeal and hence the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-