Telangana High Court
M/S. Srikanth Enterprises , vs J.Subbarao, And Another, on 8 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1038 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant, who
is the complainant in the complaint filed under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act of
1881') against the respondent. The Judicial Magistrate of
First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court, Khammam vide
judgment dated 28.03.2008 had acquitted the respondent
for the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881.
2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the
appellant firm is registered as a partnership firm carrying
on business in commission and general merchants. The
representative of the appellant firm is the Managing Partner.
During the course of business, when the appellant firm
delivered cotton to the respondent/accused on credit basis,
the respondent/accused issued three cheques for Rs.1.00
lakhs each dated 20.08.2002, 10.09.2002 and 30.09.2002
to discharge his outstanding amount of Rs.3,26,709/-. The
cheques Exs.P1 to P3 when presented for clearance were
returned unpaid for the reason of 'funds insufficient'.
3. During the course of trial, the appellant firm
represented by Managing Partner B.Venkateshwarlu(PW1)
examined three witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and also marked
Exs.P1 to P30. However, the learned Magistrate acquitted
the respondent/accused on the following grounds; i) the
complainant firm has filed certified copy of the registration,
however, no document is filed to show that P.W.1 was the
Managing Partner of the Complainant firm by name
M/s.Srikanth Enterprises; ii) Unless proof is filed to show
that P.W.1 was the Managing partner of the
appellant/complainant firm, the prosecution is bad for the
reason of there being no authorization to file the complaint;
iii) Admittedly, no proof is filed to show that on the day
when the transactions had taken place, the firm was
registered firm.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would
submit that the documents filed by the complainant firm
would go to show that cotton was in fact supplied to the
respondent/accused and the finding of the learned
Magistrate that the documents did not disclose the
authorization of P.W.1 during evidence, is incorrect. P.W.1
being the Managing Partner of M/s.Srikanth Enterprises
had the authority to file complaint and prosecute the
accused. The finding of the learned Magistrate is wrong and
liable to be reversed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show
from the record that P.W.1 was in any way authorized to
represent the appellant/complainant firm i.e., M/s.Srikanth
Enterprises to prosecute the case under Section 138 of the
Act of 1881 against the respondent/accused. In the said
circumstances, when the authorization itself is not placed
before the Court, the question of assessing whether there
was any outstanding debt or not is not required. For the
reasons of (i) no document produced before the Court to
show that P.W.1 was authorized to file a complaint, (ii) The
registration document of firm not reflecting that PW1 is a
Managing partner and finally (ii) admittedly the firm was not
registered when the sale transactions took place, the appeal
has no merits.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending,
shall stands closed.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 08.07.2022
kvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.1038 OF 2008
Date:08.07.2022
kvs
