HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.65 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment in CC No.66 of 2000, dated 29.10.2008 passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, the appellant/complainant filed the present appeal.
2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was doing business in the name of M/s.Geeta Saree Centre, and A1 firm was a proprietary concern. A1 and A2 used to purchase textile material from the complainant on credit basis and to clear the outstanding amount, issued Ex.P2 cheque for Rs.2.00 lakhs. The said cheque when presented for clearance was returned unpaid for the reason of 'Insufficient funds'. The complainant issued notice, which is marked as Ex.P4. After receipt of the notice, the accused failed 2 to make good the amount covered under Ex.P1 cheque, for which reason, complaint was filed.
3. The complainant firm examined it's wholesale and commission agent as P.W.1 and Branch Manager as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P26. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and his neighbor as D.W.2. During their evidence marked Exs.D1 to D31.
4. Learned Magistrate found that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused in several cases which were all dismissed. In support of the same, Exs.D21 to D26, copies of judgments in various cases which were filed by the appellant and dismissed are filed.
5. Learned Magistrate further found on the basis of the documents filed by the accused that the complainant was involved in the business transactions of D.W.2's shop. In the said course of business transactions, the complainant came into possession of documents and unfilled signed cheques, which were misused. Further, several documents which were filed by the accused contained the signatures and writings of 3 the complainant as admitted by him, which was not explained by the complainant. The accused has placed abundant evidence before the Court to suggest that P.W.1 has misused pro-notes and cheques during the course of business and all the cases ended in acquittal.
6. As seen from the record, the complainant has filed several cases against the accused and all of them ended in acquittal. In the present case, though Ex.P2 cheque was filed, there are no supporting documents to suggest that any sale transaction had taken place in between the complainant and the accused regarding the cheque in question. The complainant has also not filed any income tax returns to show that the accused was in any way indebted to the complainant.
7. The accused produced documents in support of his defence and was successful in discharging his burden and explained as to under what circumstances Ex.P2 came into the possession of the complainant. Further, nothing is placed before the Court to ascertain and conclude that the amount of 4 Rs.2.00 lakhs which was written in Ex.P1 is in fact an outstanding or debt that the accused was liable to pay.
8. In the said circumstances, the reasons given by the learned Magistrate is based upon records and probabilities. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:21.09.2022 kvs 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Crl.A.No.65 of 2009 Dated:21.09.2022 kvs