In a criminal appeal by a complainant against the acquittal of an accused accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court of Telangana held that the appeal is devoid of merits and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
132541
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 643 OF 2018
Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.p.C praying aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.11.2016 passed in cc No.549 of 2o1o on thorite ot the court 6f tire Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), at Karimnagar.
Between:
v.l.P.-Agro Enterprises, Distributors for pesticides and seeds, Reoresented bv its Propnetor P.Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, aged 4g years, Occ. Business, ft/o. H.No.6-3-443i2, Shop No.4, Gandhi Road, Kari"mnagarl
AND
...APELLANT/COMPLATNANT
1 . State of Telangana, Through Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
...RESPODENTS
...RESPODENT/ACCUSED
lA NO: 2 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC prayin g that in the circumstances stated n the ffi t filed in ort of tition Hi h Cou be grant special leave to the Petitioner/Appell ant in filing the present Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 10.11.201 6 in CC No.549 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Special Ir/obile), at Karimnagar
Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. R NAGARJUNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRl. S. GANESH, ASSISTANT pUBLtC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. K.S.MURTHY
The Court made the following: ORDER
IION'BI- i SMT..II,:S'I'ICE G. ANUPAMA CHAI(IiIAYARTHY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.643 of 20.lti
.II,TI)GMFI.II-:
1'his appr:al is filed by the complainant, a6;1.3rieved of the aoclrriLLal ol accused vide orders dated 10.11.2016 ir t-l.C.No.549 ol 2010 on t e llle of Judicial Magistrate o{' First ,illa:;s (Special lvlobilc). K ,r iurnagar. Initially, the appeal was pre i:rred belore the I\r A.lclitir ral DistricL and Sessions Coult (Irast l-rack Court), Karin naga , but- the strrne was returned by the said O,tur_, as appeal lies to this(,lourt in view of the judgment of thi; r-lour-t in Smt. I'}.'ijaya I axmi v. Srnt. S.P.Sravana & anothclr. llencc, [l-ris appcaI is pr : felred
L lnitir Lly, a complainl has been filed by 1lr,.r c,tmplainant LLncle l SecLi r I 2(10 Cr.P.C. lbr t[-re offence punisl-rabl: unrler Section
'crl.P.No.1572 r:f )At6,cit.27,10.2017
2
,l ., -r.:
GAC', J Crl.A.No.643 of 2018
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for grant of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The contents of the complaint, in
nutshell, are that the complainant is the distributor of pesticides and seeds doing business at Karimnagar and accused is also doing the same business at Peddapalti. The accused used to purchase seeds and pesticides from the complainant regularly on credit basis and fell due for an amount of Rs.1,96,191/-. When the complainant demanded the accused for payment of the said amount, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.764879, dated 25.01.2010 of State Bank of Hyderabad, ADB Peddapalli Branch for the said amount l.e. Rs. 1,96, 191/- in favour of the complainant's proprietary concem, namely, VIP Agro Enterprises. The averments further disclose that the complainant has deposited the said cheque on 25.01.2010 in his account with Corporation Bank, Karimnagar Branch for collection, and the same was dishonored and returned to the complainant on 08.02.2010 along with a Memo dated 02.02.2010 by the Bank where the reasons mentioned as "Account closes". Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice through his Counsel on 10.02.2010 demanding the accused to repay the
3
G1C, J t.-.' 1.,4.ito.643 o/ 20l8
chcrlur aln( L.nt, fbr wh ich, the accused issued a re tl.l nrtticc clated 15.01.20 l0 denyine tie averments of the Iegll notjc,t., upon u4-rich, the complar rlnt has tiled cor-nplaint before the Cour1.
l-- + :i'
4
c,-t(',.t (-r 1.,1. :\1o.6 4 3 of 2018
prove that the complainant has supplied pesticides or seeds to thc accused, for which, the said cheque has been issued by the accused to clbar the outstanding due amount to a tune of Rs. 1,96,191/Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act envisages that the cheque has to be issued for discharge of a legally enlbrceable clebt In the present case, the entire contention of the learned counsel {br. the cornplainant is that the accused has issued the said cheqLre to discharge the legally enlorceable debt, but without there being any documentary evidence to show that there is a debt between both the parties out ofthe business transactions, it cannot bc considered as a legally enforceable debt. The trial Court has also held rl.rat thc complainant has failed to prove that there is legally enfolceablc debt and no details of business transactions, including the account books, are filed. Therefore, the trial Court has acquitted thc accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 ol the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5
G/t(', J r','t. 1. ,\ 't.64 3 o/ 2018
cf t()l r) in'c u uritr in the oldcrs passed by th,,' trialt- our1. so as to inlc|le|c rriil r thc sanre
l)endi r1-l rr.riscellaneous applications, il- an1. stLall stand
clos,:cl
Scl/- K.SRINIVASARAO JOINT REGIST
//TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER
To,
pr
NJB
q
, i i ! I I I I i i I
HIGH COL RT
GAC,J
DATED: 2,110212023
ORDER
CRLA.No. i43 of 2018
t'
7',
A,,
I,,1
ri 1 r'ii ?t?3
,
,.;
DISMISSING TI E APPEAL
AS DEVOID OT MERITS q $ 3t3 \b
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused for dishonour of a cheque issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. P. Vijaya Laksmi v. Smt. S.P. Sravana & anotherReferred¶24
4 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s. VIP Agro Enterprises (represented by Proprietor P. Nageshwar Rao)
State of Telangana
M/s. Venkata Sai Fertilizers and pesticides, Seeds (represented by Proprietor Vennempally Ashok)
Justice G. Anupama Chakravarty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
