Dismissed

Ms/. Hazarimal Ram Prasad Vyas, v. R.Laxman Babu and Another

Telangana HC10 Oct 2022CRLA/647/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal against acquittal in cheque bouncing case, High Court upheld order acquitting accused. Court held complainant failed to prove existence of proprietary firm issuing cheque, making prosecution unsustainable despite undisputed signature.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondent/appellant in CC No. 4415 of 2005 upheld.

Ms/. Hazarimal Ram Prasad Vyas, Vs R.Laxman Babu and… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

132511

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 647 OF 2010

¶7

Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of Crl.P.C. Against the Judgment dated 25.01 .2010 in CC/No. 4415 2OO5. On the file of the Court of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S HAZARIMAL RAM PRASAD VYAS, ACC. Cement Dealer Mancherial, Being represented by its Proprietor Jugal Kishore Vyas S/o Ram Prasad, aged 45 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o Mancherial

¶10

...APELLANT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

AND

¶12

R.LAXMAN BABU S/o Not known to the Appellant, Aged 40 years, Occ Business, Proprietor Sapathagiri Agenies, Medariwada, Mancherial.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPODENT

¶16

For the Appellant: SRI K V. BHANU PRASAD

¶17

Forthe Respondent 1: SRI R. RAJESH NEHTA

¶18

For the Respondent 2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR (TS)

¶19

The Court Delivered the following Judgment

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

a(Ilv[INAL APP_EAL No. 6,47 oF 2O1Q

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

Appellant/Complainant aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, in C.C.No.44 15 of 2()05, dated 25.01.2010, acquitting the accused for the oflence pLrnishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188 1 .

¶24

The case of the complainant is that he has been supplying cement to the respondent/ accused on credit basis and the respondent/ accused fell due to the complainant. On demand of complainant, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.49,OO5/- and the said cheque was returned for the reason of insufficient funds. Having issued a notice since the accused failed to make good the amount covered by the cheque, a complaint was filed.

¶25

During the course of trial the Proprietor of the firm namely M/s.Hazarimal Ram Prasad Vyas himself examined as PWI and Exs.Pl-cheque, Ex.P2-bank return memo, Ex.P3-Copy of lega-l notice and Ex.P4-Acknowledgment of service of notice being served on the accused, were marked.

¶26

¶27

The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that PWl failed to show there was a firm in the name of M/s.Hazarimal Ram Prasad Vyas in which name, the cheque was issued and that PWl was the Proprietor of the said firm.

¶28

As seen from the evidence, except filing the cheque, cheque

¶29

return memo, notice and the acknowledgment of service of notice, no other documents are filed.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the signature on the cheque is not disputed a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted and for the said reason the acquittal recorded by the iearned Magistrate is improper and liable to be reversed.

¶31

The cheque was isstred in the name of M/s.Hazarimal Ram Prasad Vyas which is a Proprietary lirm. Under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a company can prosecute, since it is a legal entity. When i1 company or a Proprietary concern as in the present case is prosecuting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is for the complainant to prove that such Proprietary concern ls ln existence. Unless PWl who stated that he was the Proprietor

¶32

¶33

when failed to file documents to substantiate that a firm in the name of M/s.Hazarimal Ram Prasad Vyas is in existence and PWI is the Proprietor of the said firm, it cannot prosecute the accused.

¶34

In the absence of both, the Magistrate has no other option but to dismiss the complaint, which wzrs rightly done. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the acquittal.

¶35

Accordingllr, the appeal is dismissed.

¶36

Miscelianeous applications pending, if any, in this criminal

¶37

petition, shall star.rd closed.

¶38

¶39

SD/- K.SRINIVASA^RAO Jo,NTg:citTni,--

//rRUE copy//

_eca lail.rz1"

SECTION OFFICER

To,i. The Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial' 2. Two CCs io^{pUBLtC PROSECUTOR,Highcourt for the State of Telangana} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶44

One CC to M/S^{K.V. BHANU PRASAD, Advocate} IOPUCI

¶45

One CC to M/S R. RAJESH^{NEHTA' Advocate} [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies.

¶47

One Spare CoPY KKS

?|q'

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1011012022

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.647 of²⁰¹⁰

I
r,.t SliE i
<br>2 3 t]E[ ?[22
{l
. ..,: .,,..

¶54

t>-

¶55

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

Ms/. Hazarimal Ram Prasad Vyas, v. R.Laxman Babu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms/. Hazarimal Ram Prasad Vyas, v. R.Laxman Babu 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

Sri Rajashekar Reddy , Rajashekar, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Spl.Pp.

The State of A.P. Vs Seshabhattar (Yadagiri), Laxmi Narsimha Chary

The State of A.P. Vs Nayakuni Bal Raj

Syed Wajid, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Wajid, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Amhed Bin Jabeer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh