Kerala High Court
Lekha Chacko vs Leena Jose @ Leelamma on 27 January, 2025
CRL.A NO. 1225 OF 2008
1
2025:KER:6409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TH
MONDAY, THE 27
DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA,
1946
CRL.A NO. 1225 OF 2008
Crl.L.P. NO.391 OF 2008 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ST NO.159 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II,
KANJIRAPPALLY
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
EKHA CHACKO, W/O.P.P.CHACKO,
L
PAYYAMPALLIL HOUSE, CHAMAMPATHAL.P.O.
BY ADV SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:
1
EENA JOSE alias LEELAMMA,
L
KIDANGAYIL HOUSE, CHAMAMPATHAL.P.O, MANIMALA.P.O.
2
TATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS
S
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV SMT.K.GIRIJA
OTHER PRESENT:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-SMT.SEENA C.
THIS
CRIMINAL
APPEALHAVING
BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
27.01.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 1225 OF 2008
2
2025:KER:6409
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is at the instance of the complainant in ST
Case No.159 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally, challenging acquittal of the
accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct
(hereinafter referred as 'the NI Act'), vide judgment dated
12.01.2000.
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused
borrowed Rs.2,30,000/- from her and towards discharge of
that debt, she issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 24.01.2006.When
that cheque was presented before Bank, it was returned
dishonoured for the reason insufficient funds, as per Ext.P2
dishonour memo and Ext.P3 intimation. Thereafter,
complainant sent registered lawyer notice to the accused
intimatingdishonourofthechequeanddemandingthecheque
amount. In spite of receipt of notice, the amount was not
returned and hence the complaint.
3. On taking cognizance and on appearance of the
accused before the trial court, particulars ofoffencewasread
over and explained, to which she pleaded not guilty and
CRL.A NO. 1225 OF 2008
3
2025:KER:6409
claimed to be tried. PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P7
were marked from the side of complainant. On closure of
complainant's evidence, accused was questioned under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. She denied all the incriminating
circumstances brought on record, and stated that she neither
borrowed any amount from the complainant nor issued any
cheque in her favour.ThehandwritingandsignatureinExt.P1
cheque is not of her. There was some dispute between
husbands of the complainant and accused, and in December
2005,husbandofthecomplainantevenassaultedthehusband
of the accused.Shelostherblankchequeleaf,alongwithher
purse, and to her belief, the complainant who got possession
of that cheque, misused the same, to fileacomplaintagainst
her. DW1 was examined from defence side.
4. On analysing the facts and evidence, and on hearing
the rival contentionsfromeitherside,thetrialcourtacquitted
the accused, finding that the complainant failed to prove
execution of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused. Aggrieved by the
acquittal of the accused, the complainant has preferred this
appeal.
CRL.A NO. 1225 OF 2008
4
2025:KER:6409
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant
and learned counsel for the 1st respondent/accused.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
accused'LeenaJose'washavinganaliasnameas'Leelamma',
and Ext.P1 cheque was signed by her, writing her name as
'Leelamma Jose'. But in the complaint, except in the cause
title, no where it was mentioned that 'Smt.Leena Jose' was
having an alias name as 'Leelamma'. DW1-the Bank Manager
deposed that the account holder was 'Smt.Leena Jose,
Kidangayil House, Chamampathal', and Ext.P7 series was the
account details of the accused in that bank. The Account
Opening Form signed by the accused shows her name as
'Leena Jose' and her signature in that document is entirely
different from the signature seen in Ext.P1 cheque. DW1-the
Bank Manager categorically stated before court that, the
signatureinExt.P1wasnotthesignaturefoundintheAccount
OpeningForm.ButPW1-thecomplainantdeposedbeforecourt
that, there was no difference between the signature of the
accused in Ext.P7 document and inExt.P1cheque,butthatis
not correct. Though the complainant was having a case that
CRL.A NO. 1225 OF 2008
5
2025:KER:6409
the accused was having an alias name as 'Leelamma', Ext.P6
acknowledgementcardshowsthat,thelawyernoticewassent
in the name 'Leena Jose, Kidangayil' and no alias name was
shown. That may be thereasonforservingthatnoticeonthe
accused.
7. The definite case of the accused is that she never
borrowed any account from the complainant, and she never
issued any cheque in her favour. The case ofthecomplainant
that the accused approached her for a hand loan of
Rs.2,30,000/- andsheadvancedthatamount,withoutgetting
any documents, and without insisting for the presence of any
witnesses,isnotliabletobeswallowedwithoutapinchofsalt.
PW1 admitted that she had no job or income and she hasno
landed properties even, in her name. So, the complainant
utterly failed to prove her financial capacity to advance
Rs.2,30,000/- to the accused on 20.01.2006. In the year
2006, Rs.2,30,000/-wasreallyabigamount,whichcouldnot
have been afforded by a lady having no source of income.
Thoughthestoryputforwardbytheaccusedthat,shelosther
purse with a blank cheque leaf etc. etc. is not inspiring
CRL.A NO. 1225 OF 2008
6
2025:KER:6409
confidence of this Court, there is nothing to show that, the
complainant advanced Rs.2,30,000/- to the accused and
towards discharge of that debt, she issued Ext.P1 cheque to
the complainant. The complainant failed to prove even the
identity of the person who issued Ext.P1 cheque to her. The
signature of the accused in the Account Opening Form, in
Ext.P6 AD card, in the 313 statement etc. has no similarity
withthesignaturefoundinExt.P1cheque.So,thisCourtfinds
noreasontointerferewiththetrialcourtjudgmentofacquittal
of the accused. The finding of the trial court that the
complainant failedtoproveexecutionofExt.P1chequebythe
accused is liable to be upheld.
In the result, finding no merits, the appeal is dismissed.
d/-
S
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
DSV/-
