M/S Sri Sai Manipuri Chit Fund Pvt. ... vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5618 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5618 Tel
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2022

Telangana High Court

M/S Sri Sai Manipuri Chit Fund Pvt. ... vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ... on 3 November, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 177 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.13.08.2009, reversing the order of conviction recorded by the

XIV Additional Judge-cum-XVIII Additional chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Hyderabad in C.C.No.20 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.75,000/-. 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.113 of 2009 and

the learned Sessions Judge, reversed the conviction and acquitted

the accused on the following grounds;

a) As per Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, Ex.P13-

Guarantee Agreement is void and the accused has no

obligation to perform as a guarantor, since Ex.P13 does not

contain the details of execution amount of guarantee.

b) The chit fund company failed to produce the documents to

substantiate the outstanding.

c) There is no proof of liability or debt to the extent of

Rs.92,500/- which amount is mentioned in Ex.P2-

Promissory Note and the cheque is for Rs.75,000/-.

d) It is evident from the documents produced by the

complainant company that the cheques and pro-notes were

taken in blank and subsequently filled up.

e) Admittedly, the wife of the accused was the chit member and

the details of the payments evaded for the particular months

are also not stated and no document is furnished.

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