Dismissed

M/S. Srikanth Enterprises , v. J.Subbarao, and Another

Telangana HC8 Jul 2022CRLA/1038/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 375(2) Cr.P.C. filed by a complainant aggrieved by an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the Managing Partner's authorization to file the complaint, rendering the prosecution bad in law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; review proceedings stayed.

M/S. Srikanth Enterprises , Vs J.Subbarao, and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR-THESTATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH^DAY OF^JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL APP EAL NO:^{1038 OF 2008}

¶6

Appeal under Section^{375 (2)} of^{Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgmentdated'} 28.3.2008^passed in CC.NO.^{516 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the} Judicial Magistrate of^{First Class (Special Mobile Court) at Khammam'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Srikanth Enterprises,^{represented by its Managing} -Partner, ..^Beerelli Venkateshwarlu,S/o. Ramasesiiaiah,^{agedabout 39 years,Rl/o. Gandhinagar,} Khammam .

¶9

...APELLANT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

AND

¶11

J.Subbarao, Proprietor,^{Sita Laxmi CottanTraders,SaibabaRoad, Narva} ..RESPONDENT/ACCUSED Towers, Guntur

¶12

The State of A.P.,^{through rep by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of A P ,} Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPODENT/ RESPODENT

¶14

c RLAMP. NO: 1521^{OF 2008}

¶15

Petition under Section⁴⁸² of^{Cr PC prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be} pleased to expedite the hearing of the above^{Crl.A.,by fixing an earlydate, in the} interest of^justice.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant^{:SRl. PALLE SRIHARINATH}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : SRl. RAMA RAO GHANTA}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 : PUBLICPROSECUTOR (TG)}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1O38 of 2008

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

The present appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the complainant in the complaint filed under Section 13g of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1gg1 (for short ,the Act of 1881') against the respondent. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-special Mobile Court, Khammam vide judgment dated 28.03.20Og had acquitted the respondent for the offence under Section 13g of the Act of 1gg1.

¶24

The case of the appellant/complainant is that the appellant hrm is registered as a partnership firm carrying on business in commission and general merchants. The representative of the appellant Iirm is the Managing partner. During the course of business, when the appellant firm delivered cotton to ttre respondent/accused on credit basis, the respondent/accused issued three cheques for Rs. 1.0O lakhs each dated 2O.08.2OO2, rc.Og.2OO2 and 30.09.2002 to discharge his outstanding amount of Rs.3,26 ,7O9/_. The cheques Exs.pl to p3 when presented for clearance were returned unpaid for the reason of .funds insufficient,.

¶25

¶26

¶27

During^{the course of trial' theappellant firm} represented^{bY ManagingPartnerB.Venkateshwarlu(PW} 1 ) to 3 and^{also marked} examined^{three witnessesP'Ws'1} Exs.P1 to^{P30. However} ,^{the learned Magistrateacquitted} on the follorving^{grounds;i) the} the resPondent/accused complainant^{{irm has filedcertihed copy of the registration'} however,^{no document is filed to show that P'W'1 was the} name Managing^{Partner of the Complainantfirm by} M/s.srikanth^{Enterprises; ii) Unless proof is filed to show} that P.W.I^{was tJ'eManaging partner ofthe} appellant/complainant^{firm' the prosecutionis bad for the} reason^{of there being noauthorization to hle the complaint;} iii) Admittedly,^{no proof is filed to show that on theday} when the^{transactions had taken place' the firm was} registered^firm.

¶28

Learned^{counselfor the appellant/complainant would} submit^{that the documents Iiled by the complainant firm} would^{go to show that cotton was in fact supplied to the} respondent/accused^{and the finding of the learned} Magistrate^{that the documentsdid notdisclosethe} authorization^{of P'W'1 duringevidence' is incorrect'P'W'1}

¶29

¶30

being the Managing partner of M/s.Srikanth Enterprises had the authority to file complaint and prosecute the accused. The finding of the learned Magistrate is wrong and liable to be reversed.

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant has tailed to show from the record that p.W. 1 was i, *y way authori zed, to represent the appellant/ complainant firm i. e., M/ s. Srikanth Enterprises to prosecute the case under Section 13g of the Act of 188 1 against the respondent/accused. In the said circumstalces, when the authorization itself is not placed before the Court, tJre question of assessing whether there was any outstanding debt or not is not required. For the reasons of (i) no document produced before the Court to show that^p.W. 1 was authorized to file a complaint, (ii) l.tre registration document of firm not reflecting that pWl is a Managing partner and finally (ii) admittedly the firm was not registered when the sale transactions took place, the appeal has no merits.

¶33

¶34

Asa

¶35

Asa 6 Accordingly,^{the CriminalAppealis dismissed'} sequel^{thereto,miscellaneouspetitions' ifany' pending'}

¶36

sha1l^{stands closed'}

¶37

SD/^{.K.SRINtVASRAO} JOINT^REGIS

¶38

//TRUE^COPY// SECTIO OFFICER

¶39

To, 1. The^{Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court)at} Khammam'

¶40

2 Two CCs^{to Pubhc Prosecutor'High Court for the State of Telangana'at} Hyderabad^{IOUI I}

¶41

sRIHARINATH^{Advocate IoPUC]}

¶42

, ;';;; .*' 'o'-tt

¶43

ONC^{CC tO SRI. RAMA RAOGHANTA AdVOCAIEIOPUC]}

¶44

Two^{GD CoPies}

¶45

One^SapreCoPY

CDL

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810712022

ORDER

'liJ t$Il

CRLA.No.1038 of 2008

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL^APPEAL

¶54

/<br>./ ?+-
L(.4'r)

M/S. Srikanth Enterprises , v. J.Subbarao, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Srikanth Enterprises , v. J.Subbarao, and Another

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

Smt. D.a.Deepa Vs the State of A.P. and 3 Others

G.Jagadishwar , Jagadish, Vs State through Sho.,, of P.S.

Ganta Narender Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P.

G.Venkat Ramulu Vs C.Rama Murthy and the State of A.P.

Kunamalla Sunil Vs State of Telangana

Mandula Sai Kumar Vs State of Telangana