In this criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) CrPC, the appellant/complainant sought to set aside the acquittal of Mrs Ayesha Begum for an offence under Section 138 NI Act. The High Court, upholding the trial Court's finding that the complainant failed to prove the discharge of legal liability and receipt of statutory notice, dismissed the appeal.
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.
[32ee ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 319 OF 2018
criminal Appeal under section 378 (4) of criminar procedure code against the Judgment dated 15-11-2017 made in CC No. 229 of 20,16 (Otd CC No. 644 of 2015 of CMM) on the file of the Cou( of the XXI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Between:
Mohd Rafeeq S/o. Mohd Yousuf, Age 46 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o 13-3-217 Mustaidpura Puranapul, Hyderabad iS
...Appellant / Complainant
AND
Housewife, R/o. H.No. 18-12-418101133, Omer Colony, Hafe'ezbaba Nagar, Hyderabad
...Respondent / Accused
..Respondent / Accused
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Syed Ahmed Ali
Counsel for the Respondent No. I
:
Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : Smt S Madhavi, Assistant Publicprosecutor
The Court delivered the foltowing Judgment :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.319 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant seeking to set aside thejudgment of acquittal dated 15.11.201.7passed inC.C.No.229 of 2016(old C.C.No.644 of 2Ol5) on the file of thelearned XXI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short 'the trialCourt').
4 . The brief case of the com plainant 1S that, the accused entered into an agreement of sale dated03.02.2011rvith him to purchase his property bearing H.No.18-12-4 1B/Ol2Ol1,
2
admeasuring 100 Square Yards situated at Omercolony, Hafezbabanagar, Hyderabad for a sale consideration of Rs.14,OO,0O0/- out of which, the accused paid Rs.2,50,000/- to him on the same day and fraudulently made executeda receipt of Rs.4,0O,OO0/- and promised to pay the remaining amount within a week, but failed to do the same and thereafter,draggedthe matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant did not pressurize the accused in good faith. The accused agreed topay balance sale consideration within five months, butshe failedto do so. The complainant called for a meeting with the eldersand then accused entered into an agreement dated18.07.2013 cancelling the earlier agreement of sale, agreeing topurchase the 1n property for Rs.18,0O,OO0/- and that paid Rs.75,OOO/addition to earlier paid advance sale consideration of Rs.2,5O,O0O/- and that accused agreed to payremaining consideration of Rs.i4,75,000/- on or before 18.10.2013 andalso issued 5 cheques bearing Nos.379181, 379183, 379L84,379185 and 379186 each for Rs.2,95,000/-, btrt in vain and that she failed to do so. As per the request of the accused, the complainant presented cheque bearing No.379181, drawnon
J
Oriental Bank of Commerce, OldAlwal Branch,Hyderabadon 16.12.2OI3 but the samewas returneddishonored u'ith a Memo dated 17 .12.20 13 for "FundsInsufficient" in the account of the accused and thereafter,the complainantissued legal notice dated O4.OI.2Ol4 informing her aboutterminationof agreementof sale dated 18.07.2013. Thereafter,the accused again approached him ald requested time showingpersonal domesticproblems and paid Rs.l,OO,OOO/- towards part satisfactionof the cheque and took another six months topay the remaining balance but failed to do so. When the complainantpresented the remaining cheques for realization theygot dishonored and returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient".Thereupon, the complainant again issued legal noticeand theaccusedupon receipt of the said notice neither repaid amountnor gave any reply to the said notice and thereby, the accusedcommitted an offence under Section 138 of the N.l. Act,1881 (for shorttheN.I. Act').
4
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and acquitted for the said offence under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/complainant preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.
5
Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.379183,dated 01.09.2015for Rs.2,95,000/ and Ex.P2 chequebearingNo.379 186, dated 01.O9.2015 for Rs.2,95,000/- dulyin his favourtowards discharge oflega111' enforceable liability
(ii) there is no material on record tosay that the accused received statutory notice
1 1. Accordingly, this CriminalAppeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions,pending ifany,sha11 also stald
dismissed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/. M. RAMANAKRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR t
SECTION OFFICER
J, One CC toSri Syed AhmedAli, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies
VAJDL
YA,-
HIGH COURT
DATED:0910912024
JUDGMENT
CRLA.No.319 of 2018
t oB 1HE S l4
Z.
/O
(-)
I 0 3 L,;; 20Zt i
/
a). ^r'-tr rcriEo i
DISMISSING THE CRLA
n "d"| #.-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in holding that the appellant failed to establish that the accused issued the cheques for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
Whether there is material on record to establish that the accused received the statutory notice.
Whether the appellate court ought to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohd Rafeeq S/o. Mohd Yousuf
Mrs Ayesha Begum
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its pp, High Court at Hyderabad
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
