Dismissed

M/S. Kedia Textiles v. Madina Matching Centre and the State of A.P.

Telangana HC11 Jul 2022CRLA/1453/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 378(Cr.P.C) challenging an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the appeal. The court held that the accused successfully discharged the burden of proof by showing prior receipts and payments, and the complainant failed to establish an outstanding debt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal is dismissed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, are to be closed.

M/S. Kedia Textiles Vs Madina Matching Centre and the… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1453 OF 2007

¶6

Petition under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated.o729.12.0G passed in C.C.No.177104 on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad .

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/S. KEDIA TEXTILES al21-2- 658.14, Urdu Galli, Patel Market, Hyderabad, rep. by its Proprietor, Sri Praveen Kedia, S/o Sri Naresh Kumar Kedia, aged about 25 yrs., Occ: Business, No 21-2-445, Flat No. 202, Gokuldass Complex,

¶9

...APELLANT/Complainant

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . Madina Matching Cente at 21-2- 658/4, Urdu Galli, Patel Market, Hyderabad, rep. by its Proprietor, Mr- Arshad lqbal, S/o Not Known to the Complainant, aged about 35 Yrs, Occ: Business ..RespondenUAccused

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPODENT/ RESPODENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. RUPENDRA MAHENDERA

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None appeared

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

¶20

HONC'URABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1453 of 2OO7

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal is filed questioning the acquittal of the l"t respondent/accused vide judgment in CC No.177 of 2OO4 dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶24

The complainant is M/s.Kedia Textiles represented by its Proprietor Praveen Kedia and the accused/1st respondentMadina Matching Centre represented by its Proprietor Arshad Iqbal.

¶25

It is the case of the complainant/appellant that the firm Kedia Textiles supplied material to the accused frrm and in the course ol business, fell due an amount of Rs.91,948/and he issuecl cheque bearing No.023870 for Rs.3,OO0/- dated 25.O1.2OO4 and when the said cheque was presented for clearance, the cheque which is Ex.Pl was returned with an endorsemen t'insulllcien t lunds'.

¶26

¶27

¶28

During the course of trial, the Proprietor of Kedia Textiles examined himself as P.W. 1 and he admitted that the 1"1 respondei-rt/accused used to approach its firm and purchase cloth material. Running account was maintained. In the course of business when the material was given on credit, outstanding dues would be paid within 3O days lrom the date of bill and also the interest at the rate of 24ok. The 1., respondent/accused was liable for a sum of Rs.9 1,948 l- after reconciliating the account.

¶29

5 The complainant/appellant persuaded the 1"t

¶30

respondent/accused to issue cheques, for which reason, the 1.1 respondent/accused issued cheques bearing Nos.O23871 to 02387 3 and when the same were presented, thcy rve re returned unpaid, as such, complaint was Iiled vide CC No.358 of 2001 and the 1"r respondent/accused herein was lound guilty and convicted in the said case. Further, during the course ol his cross-examination, the complainant/ appe llant admitted that he has not specifically filed any documents in

¶31

¶32

i t

¶33

CC No.364 antl 365 of 2003 to convince the Court regarding the liability.

¶34

The appellant/complainant having frled and secured conviction in CC No.358 of 2001 for the amount outstanding to Rs.91,948/-, learned Magistrate found that there was no liability which was specilied by the complainant to show how there was an outstanding after deducting previous amounts, which were subject matter o[ earlier CCs and convicted.

¶35

Further, Ex.Dl was marked during the course of trial by the 1"t respondent/accused having entered into the witness box. The said document Ex.Dl is a receipt issued reflecting that blank chques were issued during the year 2000, for which reason, learned Magistrate found that Ex.Pl was not issued on 25.O7.2OO3 as claimed by P.W.1. The learned Magistrate further found that in the translation of Ex.Di it is disclosed ttrat the 1"t respondent/accused has paid the arnount and also issued 13 cheques besides that he used to pay Rs.3,O00/every month.

¶36

Ii I II II

¶37

¶38

8 The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that when the issuance of cheques have been admitted l.hat itself would indicate that the 1"t respondent/accused is accepting the liability. The counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumaril, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that once cheque has been issued presumption is in favour of the complainant that it is for the accused to discharge his liability.

¶39

9 In the case on hand, the lst respondent/accused himsell entered into the witness box and marked Exs.Dl to D 1 5, which are receipts and reply notices issued by the ls respondent/accused. The appellant/complainant has suppressed all the documents, which are reply notices and also the receipt ExDl and hled the present case. However, the defence documents are not disputed and further there is no counter to the explanation given under reply notices ard also during the course of cross-examination whereby the accused

¶40

l AlR 2015 Supreme Court 2240

¶41

¶42

substantiated his version that the entire debt was already discharged u,hich are subject matters of the earlier cases hled under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and there is no liability as far as the present cheque is concerned.

¶43

Accordingly, the trial Court also found that the l"t respondent/accused has discharged his burden to show that these cheques, which were issued in the year 2000 were subsequenfly misused to hle the present CC. In the circumstances. the burden shifts on to the l"t respondent/accused arld the sarne was discharged by him by preponderance of probability that there was no outstanding and in the circumstances, when the version of P.W. 1 is viewed vis-ir-vis, the version given by the 1=t responden t/ accused and a-lso considering the documents under Exs.Di to D5, there is no doubt regarding the finding of the trial Court that the complainant/appellant failed to prove the oulstanding against the cheque in question. In the absence ol any debt, which could be proved by the appellant/complainant, the

¶44

\ \

¶45

¶46

prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶47

Instruments Act has to fail.

¶48

I t. In the circumstances, there ar-e no grounds to interfere with the finding of the iearned Magistrate. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto,

¶49

miscellar-reous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.

¶50

¶51

SDIK.SRINIVAS RAO JOINIflEGI$TRAR //TRUE COPY// ,Qrⁿ a\q<sup>tnV SECTION'OFF{CGR

¶52

To,

¶53