Telangana High Court
M/S Sri Sai Manipuri Chit Fund ... vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And ... on 3 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 174 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/defacto
complainant aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the III
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,
dt.20.08.2009, reversing the order of conviction recorded by the
XIV Additional Judge-cum-X/III Additional chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hyderabad in C.C.No.177 of 2008, dated
06.04.2009, convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Heard Sri Jaikanth, representing Sri N.V.Ananthakrishna,
learned counsel for the appellant.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant
company filed case under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the wife of the accused was
the subscriber of the chit being run by the complainant company.
Being a successful bidder, she has taken the prize amount,
however, she failed to pay the remaining installment amounts and
that the total outstanding amount is Rs.77,500/-. To discharge
the said liability, a cheque for the said amount was given by the
accused who is the husband of chit subscriber, and when the said
cheque was presented, it was returned unpaid for the reason of
'account closed'. It was intimated to the accused by sending a
legal notice, however, the accused failed to pay the amount
covered by the cheque, for which reason a private complaint was
filed.
4. Learned Magistrate having examined the complainant who
was representative of the chit fund company and marking Exs.P1
to P16 found that the accused was guilty and sentenced him to
undergo one year imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
5. The accused preferred appeal vide Crl.A.No.114 of 2009 and
the learned Sessions Judge, reversed the conviction, and acquitted
the accused on the following grounds;
a) On perusal of Ex.P1, it is mentioned behind the cheque that
it is a security cheque.
b) PW1 failed to explain who made the said endorsement.
c) K.S.Lakshmi signed Ex.P12 which is a chit application and
also Ex.P13 which is a guarantee bond.
d) The signatures of K.S.Lakshmi, only, appearing on Exs.P2,
P13 and P14 which were the documents executed by her,
however, none from the respondent company have signed on
the said documents.
e) The complainant company failed to prove that there was any
existing liability on the accused.
f) Undertaking to pay wife's debt can only be a moral obligation
and cannot take shape of legally enforceable debt.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant
would submit that the Sessions Judge has erred in reversing the
order of well reasoned Judgment of the Magistrate Court. In fact,
Ex.P2 which is a joint promissory note was also filed along with
other documents such as chit application, guarantee bond etc.
7. Admittedly, the wife of the accused was a member of the chit
of the complainant company. In the agreement of guarantee-
Ex.P13, Ex.P14-voucher, Ex.P12-enrollment in the chit, were all
signed by the wife of the accused. Admittedly, she was the
borrower of the amount. As seen from Ex.P1-cheque, there is an
endorsement behind the cheque which reads as 'security cheque'.
On close scrutiny it was also found by the learned Sessions Judge
that the writings on the cheque differed and the stand taken by
the accused that it was a security cheque was believed in
corroboration of the fact that there was no outstanding which the
accused is liable to pay. The Company failed to produce
documents which reflected payments of monthly chit amount.
Unless the details of such monthly chit amounts are produced,
the Court cannot come to a conclusion about the outstanding.
8. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are reasonable
and based on record for which reason, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the well reasoned Judgment of the learned Sessions
Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt.:03.11.2022
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 174 OF 2010
Dt. 03.11.2022
tk
