M.Narasimha Reddy vs Smt.Y.Nagender Durga And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2808 Tel

Telangana High Court

M.Narasimha Reddy vs Smt.Y.Nagender Durga And Another on 5 March, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 97 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Complainant, questioning

the acquittal recorded by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad

at Malkajgiri, in C.C.No.402 of 2008, dated 30.12.2011, for the

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Chakravarthy, learned counsel representing

Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. According to the complainant, a hand loan of Rs.4 lakhs was

given to the accused. The accused and his wife issued three post

dated cheques towards repayment of the said amount. The said

cheques issued by the accused, when presented for clearance were

returned unpaid. Since the amount was not paid even after a notice

was sent to the accused, complaint was filed under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused on the following

grounds:

i) There is a material alteration of the cheque, and the same is void.

ii) The complainant failed to prove that there was any outstanding, and the cheques in question were obtained in a different transaction.

iii) Notice was not served on the accused.

iv) The Notice sent was returned with the endorsement 'not found' and another time as 'unclaimed'. Accordingly, the address on the envelope is incorrect.

5. The basic requirement of launching prosecution under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is that a statutory notice

must have been sent to the correct address of the accused.

6. The reasoning given by the learned Magistrate cannot be found

fault with. The notices that were sent were returned with

endorsement 'not found' and further the complainant did not take

any steps to prove that, the address to which the notices were sent

was, in fact the correct address of the accused.

7. Since the notice was not sent to the correct address, the

question of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, does not arise.

8. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned

Judgment of the trial Court.

9. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 05.03.2025 tk