MULAMOOTTIL CONSUMER CREDITS LTD. Vs. DILI S.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act is the petitioner, who seeks leave of this Court under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. to file an appeal against the judgment dated 28.2.2012 in S.T.No.5190 of 2010 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -IV (Mobile Court), Thiruvananthapuram, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard Sri.Biju Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and I have perused the judgment which sought to be impugned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the transaction, under which Ext.P1 cheque was issued, is admitted by the accused and therefore the findings of the court below are factually and legally incorrect and unsustainable. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that no reply is given by the accused against the statutory notice served on her. But the learned Magistrate, without proper consideration of the issue, came into a wrong conclusion that Ext.P1 was not issued by the accused towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the counsel submits that in case an appeal is entertained, there is every possibility to interfere with the findings of the court below and the order of acquittal.