HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 678 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections
397 and 401 Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment dated 11.03.2008
passed in C.C. No. 1075 of 2005. By the said judgment, the
learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Secunderabad found the accused not guilty of the offence under
Section 38 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act)
and accordingly acquitted her of the said charge.
The petitioner, M/s. Citywide Financial Services Limited,
filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the
accused, respondent No. 1 herein, availed personal loan of
Rs.6,000/- on 12.08.2002 repayable in five monthly installments @
Rs.1,200/- per month and issued cheques. The accused was
irregular in paying the installments and as on 01.07.2004, the
outstanding loan amount payable by the accused was Rs.5,100/-.
On 09.07.2004, the accused issued Ex.P 16 cheque bearing No.
811555 for the said amount drawn on UTI Bank Limited,
Begumpet branch. When the said cheque was presented for
realization, it was returned unpaid for want of funds. Therefore,
the complainant had issued a legal notice to the accused on
21.08.2004, which was returned on 06.09.2004 as the same was
intentionally unclaimed by the accused. Hence, the present
complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of
the Act.
The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence
brought on record i.e., PW. 1 and Exs.P.1 to P.25, found the 2
accused not guilty of the offence and accordingly acquitted her of
the said charge.
None appears on behalf of the petitioner-complainant and
the respondent No. 1. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Since
the matter pertains to 2008, this Court is constrained to dispose of
the revision based on the material available on record.
While recording the order of acquittal, the learned Trial
Court, at para No. 8, categorically observed as under:-
"8. In this case, the accused has not specifically produced
any oral or documentary evidence in support of the defence raised.
But from the cross-examination of PW.1, several beneficial points
have been elicited by the accused, which are amply substantiating
her case. PW1 admitted in the cross-examination in categorical
terms that the first installment cheque was honoured and the
complainant received Rs.1200/-. Even it is the case of the
complainant that the accused's son also issued a cheque for
Rs.4000/- drawn on ICICI Bank and the same was dishonoured.
After the dishonour of the said cheque issued by the son of the
accused, the complainant also received case of Rs.4000/- and in
total the complainant also received cash of Rs.6,400/- from the
accused even by June, 2003 i.e. within 10 months of the availment
of the personal loan. Inspite of payment of Rs.6,400/-, the
complainant has not returned the post dated cheques issued by the
accused and therefore, it can be said that the cheque in question for
Rs.5,100/- can not be said to have been issued in discharge of any
legally enforceable debt or liability subsisting between the
parties...."
3
The learned Trial Court, on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and his
admissions in the cross-examination, rightly disbelieved the claim
of the complainant as to the outstanding amount of Rs.5,100/- as
on the date of Ex.P. 16-cheque. This Court is not inclined to
interfere with the cogent findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court.
The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 03.01.2022 tsr 4
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 678 of 2008
DATE: 03-01-2022
