IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.L.P..No. 373 of 2011() -------------------------- CC.424/2008 of J.M.F.C.-IV,KOZHIKODE .................... CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- SHEEBA MOHANDAS,AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE RAMASWAMY,CHEROTE VAYAL PO, NADAKKAVU,CALICUT-11. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.K.SUNITHA DEVI,AGED 38 YEARS, 'THATWAMASI', KATTUVAYAL,ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 014 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PIN – 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA ,J. ------------------------- Crl.L.P No. 373 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th May, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed to grant leave to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. 2. Petitioner filed a complaint against the 1st respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque for the discharge of the said debt. The cheque on presentation was dis-honoured on the ground that account closed. A lawyer notice was sent but no amount was paid nor a reply was sent. Hence the complaint. 3. To prove the prosecution case, complainant herself was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 and P5. Accused denied the allegations made in the complaint. Accused contended that she had no transaction with the complainant. Her colleague who was working in Corporation Office was having some financial dealings with complainant's brother. Her colleague fraudulently gave the Crl.L.P No. 373 of 2011 2 cheque of the accused to the complainant's brother. The said cheque was misused to file the complaint. 4. The trial court has considered the evidence in detail and found that PW1 is not believable. The trial court found that it is unbelievable that huge amount of Rs.90,000/- was paid to the accused who was met by the complainant at the Corporation Office accidentally. It was also held that complainant failed to prove the execution of the cheque and also the transaction. Though the complainant claimed that she had sold the property to raise the money, no documents were produced. The evidence is only that of the petitioner. 5. The trial court also took note of the fact that complainant herself was in financial stringency in connection with the marriage of her daughter and she was forced to sell the property to discharge the liability. Therefore, it is unbelievable that the balance amount, if any, available would be given to the accused who did not have any close acquaintance with the complainant. At paragraph 10 of the judgment, the trial court considered the Crl.L.P No. 373 of 2011 3 matter in length. I do not find any perversity in the findings of the trial court. Findings appear to be reasonable. Hence I am not inclined to grant leave. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge Crl.L.P No. 373 of 2011 4 Crl.L.P No. 373 of 2011 5