Sri B.Srinivas, vs Sri M.Umamaheswara Rao And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4871 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1052 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the

appellant/complainant aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by

the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,

in C.C.No.1587 of 2004, dated 04.11.2008, acquitting the

accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The case of the complainant is that he has lent an

amount of Rs.1,90,000/- by way of investment in the

mess/hotel run by 1st respondent/accused. On repeated

requests, the accused issued four cheques amounting to

Rs.1,90,000/- which when presented were returned unpaid

for the reason of insufficient funds.

3. Learned Magistrate having examined PW1 on behalf of

complainant and marking Exs.P1 to P16, found the

respondent not guilty for the offences, for the following

reasons;

a) The complainant has failed to make out a case of debt

against the 1st respondent/accused.

b) According to the evidence of PW1, there is no proof

whatsoever to show that Rs.1,90,000/- was in fact invested

by the complainant with the accused in his business.

c) Further, when there is partnership deed and the deed is

not cancelled, the lending becomes doubtful

4. The reasons given by learned Magistrate are based on

record. When the complainant himself claims that the

amount was invested in the business which was run on

partnership basis, the question of liability interse between the

partners does not arise, unless there are any conditions in

the said partnership deed. The partners in the partnership

firm are equally responsible for the losses and profits that

they incur in the business, unless specified in the

partnership deed. Since there is nothing on record to suggest

that for the investment amount of the complainant, the

accused would be liable. In the said circumstances, the

findings of the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be

improbable or incorrect.

6. Since, there is no infirmity in the reasoning given by the

learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaint, this Court

feels there are no grounds in the appeal.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J

Date: 23.09.2022 tk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1052 OF 2009

Dated: 23.09.2022

tk