1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 248 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") by the appellant/ complainant aggrieved by the acquittal of the Accused No.3 in C.C.No.1 of 2008 dated 24.09.2009 passed by the learned XV Additional Judge Cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I. Act.)
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and perused the record.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant/complainant prosecuted Accused No.1-firm which is M/s. Abdullah and Aisha Tours and Travels, Accused No.2 is the Managing Partner and Accused No.3 viz., Aisha Adil was shown as the partner in the said firm. The learned Magistrate by Judgment dated 24.09.2009 convicted the firm-Accused No.1 and Accused No.2-Managing Partner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and however, learned Magistrate found Accused No.3 not guilty of the offence. The reason given by the learned Magistrate is that 2 though there is pleading in the complaint stating that Accused No.3 was complicit in issuing the subject cheque and she was also responsible for running of the firm, however Ex.P10-promissory note shows that Accused No.3 stood as a witness to the transaction and not as guarantor, even if she is taken as guarantor, the cheque was only signed by Accused No.2, for the said reason, Accused No.3 was not liable for punishment.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is a clear mention in the complaint stating that Accused No.3 was also responsible for the day to day business and the finding of the learned Magistrate is incorrect for the reason of acquitting Accused No.3 on grounds contrary to the claim made by the complainant regarding her complicity in issuing the cheque and also in the transaction.
5. In cases of appeal against acquittal, the Court in appeal can only intervene if the findings on which the acquittal is based are unreasonable and are not based on record.
6. The learned Magistrate has found that Ex.P10-promissory note reflects that this Accused No.3 stood as witness to the transaction and specifically the appellant failed to prove that Accused No.3 was also responsible for the day to day affairs in running the Accused No.1-firm. 3
7. In view of the aforesaid, I find no grounds to interfere with the acquittal of Accused No.3 recorded by the learned XV Additional Judge Cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in C.C.No.1 of 2008 dated 24.09.2009.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.11.2022 mnv/rev