Judgment · High Court · 2007

J.M. JAMES, J.-------------------------------Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2002 -------------------------------Dated this the 15th March, 2007.J U D G M E N TPW.3 is the complainant. He alleged that the firstrespondent, accused, had issued Ext.P1 cheque, for an amount ofRs.89,167/=. Because of its dishonour and non settlement of theaccounts, when demanded by the complainant, a complaint waspreferred as C.C.No.90/1994, on the file of the Judicial First ClassMagistrate Court-I, Thrissur. Three witnesses were examined and sixdocuments were marked on the side of the complainant, and twowitnesses were examined and six documents marked, on behalf of thefirst respondent, accused. The lower court found, accepting Ext.D5agreement and the involvement of the complainant on behalf of theaccused before DW.1, a head clerk working in Kerala Water AuthorityDivision, Thrissur, the complainant came in possession of a blankcheque signed, and kept in the office, for the business purpose ofestablishment of the accused, by the complainant. Therefore, thecomplaint was dismissed and the accused acquitted. Hence, thisappeal. Crl.A.No.111/200222. Ext.D5 is an agreement written in Tamil betweenthe complainant and the accused, Ext.D6 being its translation inEnglish. The signature of the appellant in it has been denied. It iscontented by the counsel for the appellant that none of the attestors toExt.D5 had been examined before the court below. The appellant alsodid not take any steps to have his signature in Ext.D5 examined by anexpert for an authoritative conclusion. As the appellant has taken upthe stand that he had no contact with the accused, DW.1 wasexamined and Exts.D1 to D4 were brought into evidence, to show thatthe appellant had been continuously representing the accused beforeDW.1, in connection with the digging and operating the bore well. Itis because of these reasons that the court below came to theconclusion that the appellant was not speaking the truth. The courtalso came to the finding that the appellant had access with thedocuments including the signed cheques of the accused. But when Igo through the evidence, I do not find any material to show thatthough the appellant had transactions on behalf of the accused withthe Kerala Water Authority, as deposed by DW.1, there is nothing toshow that he had committed theft of Ext.P1 cheque from thepossession of, or from the office of the accused. Ext.D5 also requiresa further proof. In such circumstances, I am of the view that an Crl.A.No.111/20023opportunity be given to both sides to raise their contentions, byadducing further evidence. Therefore, I am not discussing the factson merit. 3. Hence, I set aside the impugned judgment, dated16.8.1994, and restore C.C.No.90/1994, to the file of the Judicial FirstClass Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur. 4. The parties shall appear before the court below on24.4.2007. This case being of the year 1994, the learned Magistrateshall give utmost priority for the disposal of the same. The parties areat liberty to adduce evidence required as per the law, if they are soadvised. The matter shall be disposed of, at the earliest, and in anycase, within four months from the date of appearance of the partiesbefore that court. Criminal Appeal is allowed as above. J.M. JAMES,JUDGEnj. J.M. JAMES, J.-------------------------------Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2002 J U D G M E N TDated: 15th March, 2007. -------------------------------