Telangana High Court
Rajdenderkumar Agarwal vs M.S, Venkateshwar Dress Matching ... on 13 September, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1 and 2 for
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act vide judgment in CC No.128 of 2000, dated 29.10.2008
passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Hyderabad, the appellant/complainant filed the present
appeal.
2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed
before the trial Court. The case of the complainant is that the
complainant was doing business in the name of M/s.Geetha
Sarees Centre, and A1 firm was a proprietary concern. A1
and A2 used to purchase textile material from the complainant
on credit basis and to clear the outstanding amount, issued
Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-. The said cheque when
presented for clearance was returned unpaid for the reason of
'stop payment'. The complainant issued notice, which is
marked as Ex.P4. After receipt of the notice, the accused failed
to make good the amount covered under Ex.P1 cheque, for
which reason, complaint was filed.
3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Branch
Manager as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. The accused
examined himself as D.W.1 and his neighbor as D.W.2. During
their evidence marked Exs.D1 to D31.
4. Learned Magistrate found that the complainant has
falsely implicated the accused in several cases which were all
dismissed. In support of the same, Exs.D21 to D26, copies of
judgments in various cases was filed by the appellant are filed.
5. Learned Magistrate further found on the basis of the
documents filed by the accused that the complainant was
involved in the business transactions of D.W.2's shop. In the
said course of business transactions, the complainant came
into possession of documents and unfilled signed cheques,
which were misused. Further, several documents which were
filed by the accused contained the signatures and writings of
the complainant as admitted by him, which was not explained
by the complainant. The accused has placed abundant
evidence before the Court to suggest that P.W.1 has misused
pro-notes and cheques during the course of business and all
the cases ended in acquittal.
6. As seen from the record, the complainant has filed
several cases against the accused and all of them ended in
acquittal. In the present case, though Ex.P1 cheque was filed,
there are no supporting documents to suggest that any sale
transaction had taken place in between the complainant and
the accused regarding the cheque in question. The
complainant has also not filed any income tax returns to show
that the accused was in any way indebted to the complainant.
7. The accused produced documents in support of his
defence and was successful in discharging his burden and
explained as to under what circumstances Ex.P1 came into
the possession of the complainant. Further, nothing is placed
before the Court to ascertain and conclude that the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- which was written in Ex.P1 is in fact an
outstanding or debt that the accused was liable to pay.
8. In the said circumstances, the reasons given by the
learned Magistrate is based upon records and probabilities.
There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned
judgment of the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:13.09.2022
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Crl.A.No.324 of 2009
Dated:13.09.2022
kvs
