Dismissed

M/s. Eastern Chemicals, rep .by its Proprietor,Pandellapalli v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC23 Aug 2011CRLA/1222/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this cheating appeal, the High Court confirmed the trial Court's acquittal of the accused. The Court held that the transaction was a civil contract dispute lacking a concluded agreement and criminal intention, thus Section 420 IPC was not attracted.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the acquittal was confirmed.

M/s. Eastern Chemicals, rep .by its… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

Criminal Appeal NO.1222 OF 2006

¶3

DATED: 23.08.2011

¶4

BETWEEN: M/s Eastern Chemicals Rep.by its Proprietor, Pandellapalli Poorna Chandra Rao .. Appellant And The State of A.P. rep.by its Public Prosecutor and others .. Respondents

¶5

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶6

Criminal Appeal NO.1222 OF 2006

¶7

JUDGMENT:

¶8

This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 13.09.2005 passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.152 of 1999 acquitting the respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶9

2. The de facto complainant filed the present appeal against the order of acquittal.

¶10

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3/accused.

¶11

4. The version of the appellant as it would appear from the contents of the complaint as well as the order of the trial Court is that one A.Janardhana, the third accused in calendar case before the learned trial Court placed an order on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 for supply of H.P.Naphthalene of 10 M.Ts from the appellant-complainant, who is the manufacturer. It is said that the complainant sent goods worth Rs.3,38,450/- and the duty on the said goods was Rs.33,845/- and thus, a total amount of Rs.3,72,295/became due from the respondents 2 and 3 to the appellant. Subsequently, it is said that as the respondents 2 and 3 failed to pay the said amount, the appellant lodged a complaint with the police. Thereupon, the respondent No.2 issued five cheques each for

¶12

Rs.25,000/-, out of which two cheques were honoured and the remaining three cheques were dishonoured. According to the respondents-accused 1 and 2, the 3^rd accused sent a cheque for Rs.22,295/- which was received by the appellant.

¶13

5. The appellant filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate and it was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police having registered the FIR and investigated into the case and on the petition filed by the appellant, sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 15.03.1999 and the case was taken on file by the Magistrate under Section 420 IPC against the accused.

¶14

6. The learned Magistrate discharged the third accused framing charges against A1 and A2 under Section 420 IPC and tried them for the said charge and ultimately acquitted the respondents 2 and 3.

¶15

7. Basing on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the learned trial Court recorded the findings that though, the appellant stated in his evidence that there is a contract regarding the supply of goods, he failed to produce the same. Ex.P.3 was said to be an agreement according to the appellant, and the view taken by the learned trial Court is that it is only an order placed by the third accused, who was acquitted by the trial Court, but not an agreement. According to the trial Court, there was no concluded contract between the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3. Further the trial Court on evidence found that prior to the transaction in the present case, there were some other transactions between the parties regarding the supply of H.P.Naphthalene and the appellant did not produce any books of accounts showing the existing liability to pay the amount by the respondents 2 and 3/A1 an A2.

¶16

8. The crucial aspect which was considered by the trial Court is that A3 who actually placed the order was discharged and there was no documentary evidence showing that A3 was the representative of A1 Company. Further, from the entire transaction, it is not possible to hold that at the inception there was intention on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 /A1 and A2 to cheat the appellant. The view taken by the learned trial Court is that it is purely a civil contract and the remedy available to the appellant is to take appropriate action in the Civil Court for breach of contract and the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is not at all attracted.

¶17

9. Having gone through the entire evidence on record and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has correctly dealt with the evidence and perfectly justified in holding that even if the entire version of the witnesses is considered to be true, the offence under Section 420 IPC is not attracted. This Court concurs with the finding of the learned trial Court and that no offence was made out against the respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 and the order of acquittal against the respondents 2 and 3 passed by the trial Court does not require any interference in this appeal and the same is confirmed.

¶18

10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶19

_________________ Date: 23.08.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm

¶20

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶21

Criminal Appeal NO.1222 OF 2006

¶22

DATE: 23.08.2011

M/s. Eastern Chemicals, rep .by its Proprietor,Pandellapalli v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Eastern Chemicals, rep .by its Proprietor,Pandellapalli v. The State of A.P.

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

Y.Eswrappa Vs v.Ramana and 5 Others

Surampally Prabhakar Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

State of a.P., Vs Mannepalli China Atchaiah

Abdul Mateen, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Jitendra Vs Smt a. Rajashree K. Naidu

V.Sandeep Chowdary , Vajram , Sandeep, Vs The State of A.P.