HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.511 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is the complainant in CC No.525 of 2006 dated 10.11.2008 filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent, wherein the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad acquitted the respondent/accused. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the appellant is that it is a private limited company and arranges man power. The 1st and 2nd respondents who are contractors of A3 company approached the appellant in the month of October 2001 for arrangement of man power on payment of charges. Accordingly, man power was arranged and towards service charges, the respondents issued three cheques for total amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs under Exs.P1 to P3. The said cheques when presented for clearance, were returned unpaid for the reason of 'insufficient funds' in the account of the company, under Exs.P4 to P6 return memos on 10.05.2003. The said cheques were again presented 2 and they were returned on 25.07.2003 under Exs.P7 to P9 return memos. The legal notice dated 25.08.2003, a copy of which is Ex.P10 was sent. Since the amount covered by the cheque was not paid, present complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
3. Learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents on the following grounds;
i) P.W.1 failed to file any document to show that the company has authorized him to file the complaint. Ex.P16 letter is not sufficient to prove that PW.1 is competent to represent the company.
ii) As seen from Ex.P15 letter dated 01.06.2002, the appellant received Rs.3.00 lakhs and cheques for rs.4.00 lakhs from the respondents. The cheques in question were issued on 27th, 28th and 29th of January, 2003. If the transaction contents in Ex.P15 letter are believed, the complainant would not have the knowledge about the future transaction that would take place after seven months. In the said 3 circumstances, the cheques were admittedly issued without a date.
iii) The said cheques were misused by mentioning the dates without signing on the same, which is material alteration, since there was no implied authority or consent given to fill up the dates subsequently. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that Exs.P1 to P3 were not issued towards any legally enforceable debt but given as security.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the issuance of cheques is admitted, presumption is upon the respondents to prove otherwise. The presumption is maintainable if the cheques are given as security and since the appellant has proved that there is an outstanding towards cheques Exs.P1 to P3, the learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the respondents.
5. Having perused the record, the finding of the learned Magistrate that P.W.1 was not duly authorized cannot be found fault with. There are no specific particulars in Ex.P16 authorizing P.W.1 to prosecute the respondents on behalf of 4 the company. Secondly, Ex.P15 is the letter which states that the cheques Exs.P1 to P3 were issued on 01.06.2002. The appellant failed to prove that as on the dates mentioned on the cheques, there was outstanding of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The Magistrate also found that the writings on the cheques were different.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 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.
1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 5
7. The findings of the learned Magistrate are based on record and logical inferences drawn from the facts of the case. For the said reasons, the appellate Court in acquittal cannot interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate even though different view can be taken.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 08.09.2022 kvs 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.511 OF 2009 Date: 08.09.2022.
kvs 7