Dismissed

C.Narasimha Murthy, v. J.L.Narasimha Rao

Telangana HC20 Jul 2010CRLA/82/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment dismissed criminal appeals arising from acquittals under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that since the accused executed promissory notes in an individual capacity while cheques were drawn on a firm account, no legally enforceable debt existed against the firm, precluding an offence.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal appeals filed against acquittals were dismissed.

C.Narasimha Murthy, Vs J.L.Narasimha Rao — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.82 & 83 OF 2007

¶3

DATE:20.07.2010

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.82 OF 2007

¶5

Between:

¶6

C. Narasimha Murty And: J.L. Narasimha Rao and another

¶7

…… Petitioner. …..Respondents.

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.83 OF 2007

¶9

Between: G.V.S.Krishna Rao And: J.L. Narasimha Rao and another

¶10

…… Petitioner.

¶11

…..Respondents.

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶13

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.82 & 83 OF 2007

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶15

1. Common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in these two appeals arising out of acquittal of the accused for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in

¶16

short, the Act) recorded by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa in S.T.C.Nos.80 of 2003 and 96 of 2003.

¶17

2. As the matter now stands, there is no dispute about execution of promissory notes covered by Ex.P-1 in both the cases and cheques covered by Ex.P-2 in both the cases containing signatures of the accused. The accused contends that he was taken to Hyderabad with the help of hired goondas and that his signatures in the pronotes and cheques were obtained by threats and coercion.

¶18

3. According to the complainants/appellants in both the appeals, the accused borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from each of them and executed Ex.A-1 pronotes and in discharge of the said debts, the accused issued Ex.P-2 cheques. There is no dispute that when presented for encashment, both the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. After issuing statutory notices, both the complainants filed their respective cases against the accused alleging offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the lower court.

¶19

4. The complainants and the accused were friends. Complainant in S.T.C.No.96 of 2003 and the accused are partners in Sri Vijayalakshmi and Company which is a partnership firm doing turmeric business at Kadapa. The complainant in S.T.C.No.80 of 2003 is brother of the complainant in S.T.C.No.96 of 2003. The accused executed pronotes in his individual capacity. Whereas two cheques covered by Ex.P-2 were issued by the accused as Managing Partner of Sri Vijayalakshmi and Company. Even as per the complainants’ case Sri Vijayalakshmi and Company is not the borrower under Ex.P-1 pronotes. As per the promissory notes, it was the accused alone who was the borrower in his individual capacity. For whatever purpose the accused is said to have borrowed the amounts covered by Ex.P-1 pronotes, it was the accused alone who executed those pronotes in his individual capacity. Therefore, the pronotes covered by Ex.P-1 cannot be legally enforceable debts as against Sri Vijayalakshmi and Company which is drawer of the two

¶20

cheques covered by Ex. P-2. There is no debt or debts payable by Sri Vijayalakshmi and Company in favour of both the complainants. In that view of the matter, the lower court rightly found that there are no legally enforceable debts for both the cheques covered by Ex.P-2. This ground alone is sufficient to acquit the accused.

¶21

5. Under Explanation to Section 141 of the Act, a company is defined as including a firm. Under Section 141(1) of the Act, if the person committing offence under Section 138 of the Act is a company, then apart from the company, every person who was in-charge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company are liable. In these two cases, the complainant did not choose to implead Sri Vijayalakshmi and company on whose account Ex.P-2 cheques were issued. The accused/1^st respondent was not impleaded as partner of the partnership firm, but was impleaded as an individual. Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant has not made out any offences under Section 138 of the Act much less against the 1^st respondent/accused. In that view of the matter, I do not propose to go into factual controversy regarding use of force in obtaining Ex.A-1 pronotes and Ex.A-2 cheques. Conclusion arrived at by the lower court by way of acquitting the accused is in accordance with law.

¶22

6. In the result, both the criminal appeals are dismissed.

¶23

__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J.

¶24

Date:20.07.2010. Gk.

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶26

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.82 & 83 OF 2007

¶27

Date:20.07.2010

¶28

Gk.

C.Narasimha Murthy, v. J.L.Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Narasimha Murthy, v. J.L.Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ginjupalli Srinivas, Vs Ginjupalli Nalini Kumari

P.Praveen Kumar, Vs Smt. P.Padmaja , Vijaya Lakshmi

Smt. Kanamala Sujana Suvarna Suvarchala Devi, Vs State of A.P.

Mohd. Ghulam Rasool, Vs Shameem Sultana

G.v.S.Krishna Rao, Vs J.L.Narasimha Rao

Shaik Abdul Zabbar, Vs Velivela Padmavathi