M/S Geeta Saree Centre, Whole Sale ... vs M/S Venkateshwar Dress Matching ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4820 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.65 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.66 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.Geeta

Saree 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.P2 cheque for Rs.2.00 lakhs. The said cheque when

presented for clearance was returned unpaid for the reason of

'Insufficient funds'. 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 firm examined it's wholesale and

commission agent as P.W.1 and Branch Manager as P.W.2 and

marked Exs.P1 to P26. 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 which were filed by the appellant

and dismissed 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.P2 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.P2 came into

the possession of the complainant. Further, nothing is placed

before the Court to ascertain and conclude that the amount of

Rs.2.00 lakhs 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:21.09.2022 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.65 of 2009

Dated:21.09.2022

kvs