K.J. Singh, Hyderabad 500 068. vs M/S. Abdullah Aisha Tours ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5586 Tel

                                   1



         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 248 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") by the appellant/

complainant aggrieved by the acquittal of the Accused No.3 in C.C.No.1

of 2008 dated 24.09.2009 passed by the learned XV Additional Judge

Cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for

short "N.I. Act.)

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and perused

the record.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant/complainant

prosecuted Accused No.1-firm which is M/s. Abdullah and Aisha Tours

and Travels, Accused No.2 is the Managing Partner and Accused No.3

viz., Aisha Adil was shown as the partner in the said firm. The learned

Magistrate by Judgment dated 24.09.2009 convicted the firm-Accused

No.1 and Accused No.2-Managing Partner for the offence under Section

138 of N.I. Act and however, learned Magistrate found Accused No.3 not

guilty of the offence. The reason given by the learned Magistrate is that

though there is pleading in the complaint stating that Accused No.3 was

complicit in issuing the subject cheque and she was also responsible for

running of the firm, however Ex.P10-promissory note shows that

Accused No.3 stood as a witness to the transaction and not as

guarantor, even if she is taken as guarantor, the cheque was only signed

by Accused No.2, for the said reason, Accused No.3 was not liable for

punishment.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that

there is a clear mention in the complaint stating that Accused No.3 was

also responsible for the day to day business and the finding of the

learned Magistrate is incorrect for the reason of acquitting Accused No.3

on grounds contrary to the claim made by the complainant regarding her

complicity in issuing the cheque and also in the transaction.

5. In cases of appeal against acquittal, the Court in appeal can only

intervene if the findings on which the acquittal is based are

unreasonable and are not based on record.

6. The learned Magistrate has found that Ex.P10-promissory note

reflects that this Accused No.3 stood as witness to the transaction and

specifically the appellant failed to prove that Accused No.3 was also

responsible for the day to day affairs in running the Accused No.1-firm.

7. In view of the aforesaid, I find no grounds to interfere with the

acquittal of Accused No.3 recorded by the learned XV Additional Judge

Cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in

C.C.No.1 of 2008 dated 24.09.2009.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.11.2022 mnv/rev