IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.L.P..No. 318 of 2009() -------------------------- ST.1191/2008 oF J.M.F.C.-II, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------- N.RAJESH KUMAR, RAJANILAYAM, THELLIYUR P.O., VENNIKKULAM, MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MANOJ P.S., S/O. SIVAN, 183/(11/3), PUTHANVILA, 7, KIZHUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.L.P. NO. 318 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009. J U D G M E N T This Special Leave Petition is filed against the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottayam in S.T.1191/08. It is a prosecution launched u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. It is the case of the complainant that he had given an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the accused and the accused in turn had issued a cheque towards the discharge of the liability which when presented for encashment had returned with the endorsement 'insufficiency of funds'. A statutory notice was issued and prosecution initiated. 2. The defence of the accused appears to be that there were previous transactions between the complainant and the accused and this was the 6th transaction and he had already wiped off all the five transactions and at that time some blank cheques had been entrusted and that had been utilized by the complainant to file the case. The Court below has analysed Crl.L.P. 318 OF 2009 -2- the evidence and it is appealing to me as well the circumstances which had been explained by the trial court in the judgment. It was a stage when the accused had left the place of business on account of financial stringency and at that point of time one cannot expect a person to advance an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- that too without proper documents. It was not a secret affair and it had appeared in the papers that the accused had gone away from the place due to indebtedness and it has been marked as D6, D6(a), D7 and D7 (a). So it is in this back drop the trial court has analysed the materials to arrive at a decision that the preponderance of probability lie in the case of the accused rather than on the prosecution version. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said decision and therefore the petition for special leave is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-