M/S.Akshra Management ... vs Vemulapally Chalapathi 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4488 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.511 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is the complainant in CC No.525 of 2006

dated 10.11.2008 filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent, wherein

the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

acquitted the respondent/accused. Aggrieved by the same,

present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the appellant is that it is a private limited

company and arranges man power. The 1st and 2nd

respondents who are contractors of A3 company approached

the appellant in the month of October 2001 for arrangement of

man power on payment of charges. Accordingly, man power

was arranged and towards service charges, the respondents

issued three cheques for total amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs under

Exs.P1 to P3. The said cheques when presented for clearance,

were returned unpaid for the reason of 'insufficient funds' in

the account of the company, under Exs.P4 to P6 return

memos on 10.05.2003. The said cheques were again presented

and they were returned on 25.07.2003 under Exs.P7 to P9

return memos. The legal notice dated 25.08.2003, a copy of

which is Ex.P10 was sent. Since the amount covered by the

cheque was not paid, present complaint was filed under

Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

3. Learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents on the

following grounds;

i) P.W.1 failed to file any document to show that the

company has authorized him to file the complaint. Ex.P16

letter is not sufficient to prove that PW.1 is competent to

represent the company.

ii) As seen from Ex.P15 letter dated 01.06.2002, the

appellant received Rs.3.00 lakhs and cheques for rs.4.00 lakhs

from the respondents. The cheques in question were issued on

27th, 28th and 29th of January, 2003. If the transaction

contents in Ex.P15 letter are believed, the complainant would

not have the knowledge about the future transaction that

would take place after seven months. In the said

circumstances, the cheques were admittedly issued without a

date.

iii) The said cheques were misused by mentioning the

dates without signing on the same, which is material

alteration, since there was no implied authority or consent

given to fill up the dates subsequently. In the circumstances,

it cannot be said that Exs.P1 to P3 were not issued towards

any legally enforceable debt but given as security.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the

issuance of cheques is admitted, presumption is upon the

respondents to prove otherwise. The presumption is

maintainable if the cheques are given as security and since the

appellant has proved that there is an outstanding towards

cheques Exs.P1 to P3, the learned Magistrate erred in

acquitting the respondents.

5. Having perused the record, the finding of the learned

Magistrate that P.W.1 was not duly authorized cannot be

found fault with. There are no specific particulars in Ex.P16

authorizing P.W.1 to prosecute the respondents on behalf of

the company. Secondly, Ex.P15 is the letter which states that

the cheques Exs.P1 to P3 were issued on 01.06.2002. The

appellant failed to prove that as on the dates mentioned on the

cheques, there was outstanding of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The

Magistrate also found that the writings on the cheques were

different.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna

Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian

criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental

protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation.

Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and

secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation.

Both these facets attain even greater significance where the

accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment

of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the

accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false

implication. But then, this has to be established on record of

the Court.

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

7. The findings of the learned Magistrate are based on

record and logical inferences drawn from the facts of the case.

For the said reasons, the appellate Court in acquittal cannot

interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate even

though different view can be taken.

8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal fails and the same is

dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 08.09.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.511 OF 2009

Date: 08.09.2022.

kvs