1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.843 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The complaint filed by the appellant against respondents 1 and 2/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed and the respondents 1 and 2 were acquitted vide order dated 08.02.2010 in CC.No.3 of 2009 passed by the XIV Additional Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the appellant is that it is a public limited company and during the course of business, the respondents 1 and 2 purchased marble on a regular basis and there was an outstanding of Rs.21,72,804-25 ps as per the statement of account. To discharge the said outstanding, the cheque in question for the said amount was given to the complainant company. The said cheque, when presented for clearance was returned unpaid for the reason of 'payment stopped by the drawer'. Aggrieved by the stoppage of payment, legal notice was 2 sent to the respondents 1 and 2 asking them to make good the amount covered by the cheque. Having received the said notice, the respondents 1 and 2 gave reply notice and refused to make any payment, for which reason, complaint was filed.
3. P.W.1, who was the representative of the appellant company was examined on its behalf and during the course of examination, Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. The 1st respondent, who is the proprietor of M/s.Chaitanya Marbles examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D6 during the course of trial.
4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents 1 and 2 for the following reasons; i) Under Ex.D1 four signed blank cheques were given at the time of appointment of accused as dealer of the company; ii) The complainant company issued a letter in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 dated 23.06.2007 and the contents therein are correct, which is Ex.D2; iii) Further, the goods that were damaged were returned by the respondents 1 and 2, but they have not deducted the amount, 3 and not shown in Ex.P8 statement; iv) The company has not filed any invoices to substantiate that the goods were given; v) P.W.1 did not have any personal knowledge about the transactions between the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 as they have taken place in Kerala; vi) Though there was an agreement between the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 regarding the transactions, the said agreement was not filed into the court; vii) the court does not have territorial jurisdiction since notice was issued from the Head Office, which is within the limits of Police Station, Abids, as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Electronics Pvt. Ltd., v. National Panasonic India Private Limited1, wherein it is held that place of notice from which it is sent from does not confer territorial jurisdiction.
5. Though the company has examined P.W.1, who is its representative, the said representative does not have any personal knowledge about the transactions that have taken 1 2009(1) SCC 720 4 place between the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 in the State of Kerala. Admittedly, the transaction of supplying goods and the retuning of goods have taken place in Kerala. For the reason of the entire transactions being taken up at Kerala, the appellant company ought to have filed the invoices and other documentary evidence in support of their claim of outstanding covered by the cheque.
6. It is not disputed that four cheques were given as security at the time of granting dealership. Unless it is shown by the appellant company that when the goods were returned by the respondents 1 and 2 as damaged and when returning such goods is admitted, the appellant ought to have filed documentary evidence in support of it's claim that goods after being returned, were replaced. The statement of P.W.1, who did not have personal knowledge of the transaction stating that damaged goods were replaced, cannot be considered. 5
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
8. All the transactions, admittedly have taken place in the State of Kerala and the cheque was also issued at Kerala. The Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hanuman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (supra), wherein it was held that sending 2 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 6 of notice from a particular place would not confer territorial jurisdiction cannot be disputed.
9. Both, on the ground of appellant failing to make out a case that the amount mentioned in cheque was in fact outstanding and also for the reason of lack of jurisdiction, the appeal fails.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.10.2022 kvs 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.843 of 2010 Date: 20.10.2022.
kvs 8 9