Dismissed

Madhavarapu Satyanarayana, v. Shaik Khaja

Telangana HC11 Oct 2011CRLA/1111/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by a complainant against an acquittal judgment. The trial court found that an alleged debt of Rs. 2.2 lakh was false and cheques were issued for an unauthorized financial transaction. The appeal failed as the acquittal did not call for interference.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant was dismissed.

Madhavarapu Satyanarayana, Vs Shaik Khaja — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1111 OF 2006

¶6

Between:

¶7

M. Satyanarayana. - - - Appellant-Complainant. V/s. Shaik Khaja and The State of A.P. Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents-Accused.

¶8

Counsel for the Appellant : O. Kailashnath Reddy. Counsel for the Respondents : Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶9

The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page)

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶11

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1111 OF 2006

¶12

JUDGMENT :

¶13

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Complainant against the Judgment dated 16-03-2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad, Nalgonda district, in Calender Case No.417 of 2005 acquitting the first respondent-accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short, ‘the Act’).

¶14

2. Heard Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent-State. None appears for the first respondent-accused in this case.

¶15

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated as follows :

¶16

The Appellant who was the Complainant in the Calender Case filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the first respondent-accused alleging that the first respondent-accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- from him for his business purpose and thereafter towards discharge of the said debt issued three cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- on 06-12-20001, for Rs.60,000/- on 17-12-2001 and Rs.60,000/- on 18-12-2001 respectively. It is stated that when the said cheques were presented for collection they were

¶17

dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient funds” in the account of the first respondent and later on after issuing the statutory notice, the Complainant filed the complaint under section 138 of the Act.

¶18

4. At para Nos.16 and 17 of the judgement in C.C. No.417 of 2002, the lower Court observed as follows :

¶19

“16. Ex.D-1 is the pocket note book, it goes to show that

¶20

PW.1 received Rs.1,000/- daily from 03-11-2001 to 16-122001. PW.1 put his initial against on each day receipt.

¶21

17. The same pocket book further goes to show that the accused paid Rs.1,000/- daily from 26-11-2001 to 17-12-2001 and PW.1 signed on each day against the receipt. PW.1 admitted about the daily receipts……………………”

¶22

5. Thus, the learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that it is obvious from Ex.D-1 transaction that it is un-authorized financial transaction, which took place between PW.1 and the first respondent. From the evidence on record, the learned trial Court found that the cheques were not issued by the first respondent/accused towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability and therefore he is not liable for punishment under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After analyzing the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court found that the very case of the complainant that he advanced an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to the first respondent-accused is false and in fact the Appellant/Complainant had no capacity to advance such a huge amount to the first respondent/Accused.

¶23

6. The findings of acquittal therefore recorded by the learned trial Court by its judgement dated 16-03-2006, in C.C. No.417 of 2002, do not call for any interference by this Court in this Appeal.

¶24

Accordingly, the Appeal against the acquittal filed by the Appellant/Complainant fails and the same is dismissed.

¶25

________________________ JUSTICE R.

¶26

KANTHA RAO.

¶27

Date.11-10-2011 Dsh.

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶29

216

¶30

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1111 of 2006

¶31

October, 11, 2011

¶32

DSH.

Madhavarapu Satyanarayana, v. Shaik Khaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhavarapu Satyanarayana, v. Shaik Khaja

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

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bhooma Raju

Smt. Nawab Sultana Vs Sri Babu Naik Pujari, Bailiff

Sunkara Krishna Murthy Ba., Bl., Vs Devineni Uma Maheswara Rao

The Thirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi, Vs C.Nagaraju

Mohd. Khasim Vs Municipal Corporation

Sunanda Devi Vs Parvathy Bai (died)