Dismissed

Gopalakishan Agarwal, Hyd v. Md. Aslam, Secbad and 2 Othrs

Telangana HC3 Sept 2024CRLA/666/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the criminal appeal preferring an acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The accused was acquitted of an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the trial court found no subsisting liability. The appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal CRLA.No.666 of 2014 dismissed. Impugned order of acquittal of accused maintained.

Gopalakishan Agarwal, Hyd Vs Md. Aslam, Secbad and 2 Othrs — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY. THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 566 of 2014

¶7

Appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by^{the Judgment and Order} dated 21-04-20 14^passed in C.C.No.SSB of^{2013 old C.C.No.26 of 2012 on the} file of the Court of the XIX Special Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gopalakishan Agarwal, S/o. Ramsharan Agarwal,^. Age:63^{years, Occ:Retd.} Employee R/o. Flat No. 208 Brindavan Apartments, Lakdikapool,^Hyderabad.

¶10

...AppellanUComplai nant

¶11

AND

¶12

Md Aslam, S/o M D. Yousuf, Aged Major, Occ: Business^{R/o. H.No.6S-} 465181 4 Gandhi Nagar. Secunderabad

¶13

M/s. A.K Jewellers, Shop No.3-3-553, 2nd floor, Dakshan^Complex, MahankaliTemplelane.secunderabad ...RespondenUAccused

¶14

3, The State of Telangana, through Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourtat Hyderabad}

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Ch. Ravinder

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: Ms. Kiranmayi

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri S. Madhavi, Public^Prosecutor

¶19

The Court delivered the followinq: JUDGMENT

¶20

]FION'BL E SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 666^OF 2014

¶22

JUDGMENII]:

¶23

This Criminal Appeal has been hled^{assailing t}le} Judgment in C.C.No.558^of 2013^{(old C.C.No.26 of 2012), dated} 21.04.2014 passed by the^{learned IX Special Magistrateat} Hyderabad (for short "the trial Court")^{where under the accused} was found not guilty of the offence^{punishableunderSection} 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,^{1881 (hereinafter referred to} as 'l{.I. Act), and was acquitted under^{Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.}

¶24

The parties shall be hereinafter^{referredto as described in} the Magistra te's Court.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that^{the accused being a friend} and having close acquaintance^{with thecomplainant,} approached him in the month^{of February,2O1l for hand loan} of Rs.9,36,OOO/- to meet urgent^{business and domestic needs.} On the same day, the^{complainant lent arr amount of} Rs.9,36,OOO/- to the accused, and^{upon receipt of the said} amount, the accused^promised to^{repay the same within two} months, but failed to do so. In spite of^{repeated demands made} by the complainant, the accuse.l^{issuedcheque bearing}

¶26

¶27

No.7838O8, dated 23.O6.2011^{for an amountof Rs.9,36,OOO/-} drawn on ABN Amro Bank, Banjara Hills^{Branch,Hyderabad in} favour of the complainant, and on the^{sameday, the accused} borrowed another amount of Rs.3,72,OOO/- from^the complainant as hand loan and issued anotJler^{cheque bearing} No.925161, dated 23.06.2O11 for the said amount^{drawn on} ING Vysya Bank Litd., S.P.Road, Secunderabad in^{favour of the} appellant herein. The appellant herein^presented the^said cheques with the banker and the^{same were returned with an} endorsement 'InsuIlicient Funds" and "Account^Closed" respectively. The complainant got issued notice to^{the accused} on 15.11.20 11 to arrange the cheques' amount^{and the postal} authorities informed that the statutory^{noticesent to the} residentiat address of the accused was served,^however,the accused failed to repay the amount. Hence^{the complaint.}

¶28

The Court below after considering the oral^and documentarJr evidence, found the accused not^{guilty and} acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the^complainant preferred the present Criminal Appeal contending that the judgment is contrary to law, facts of the case and the Court below erred in acquitting the accused only based^on

¶29

¶30

presumptions and prayed to set^{aside the judgment passed by} the Court below.

¶31

Heard Mr.Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel^{appearing for the} appellant/complainant as well as^{Ms.Kiranmayi,learned} counsel representing on behalf^{of unofficialrespondent.}

¶32

learned counsel for the complainant^{contended that the} trial Court disbelieved the evidence of^{accused and the} documents Iiled by him and came^{to a wrong conclusionthat} the complainant failed to lay down any^{factual foundationfor} the presumptions as^{per N.I.Act.}

¶33

Per contra, the leamed counsel appearing on^{behalf of the} unoflicial respondent/ accused contended^{that the trial Court,} after considering the material^{available on record,rightly} acquitted tl"e accused.^{Ttrerefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminal} Appeal.

¶34

This Court considered the submissions^{of both sides and} perused the record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the cheques in question were not issued towards any subsisting liability. DWl admitted in his cross examination that Ex.P10

¶36

¶37

bears his signature, but it is not relevant to the^{present case. In} fact, Ex.P10 pertains to one of his customer.

¶38

Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the trail Court failed to appreciate the facts and evidence which clearly shows the ill-intension of the accused to cheat the appellant herein and without appreciating the evidence, the trial Court has erroneously passed the order of acquittal. trarned counsel further argued that the admission of the accused that the subject cheques belong to him was sufhcient for the learned trial Court to convict the accused. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned^judgment.

¶39

Opposing the sarrre Ms.Kiralmayi, learned counsel representing the unoflicial respondent/ accused would submit that the trial Court after verifying the material placed before it vide Exs.P1 to P9, has rightly acquitted the accused.

¶40

L2. Moreover, during the course of trial, it was brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/complainant died and sought time to bring the legal representatives on record, but no steps have been taken. Thus, the case of the appellant/complainant is doubtful. Therefore,

¶41

¶42

¶43

the trial Court after careful consideration of^{the evidence} available on record, came to a colrect^{conclusion and acquitted} the accused. Hence, there are^{no groundsto interfere with the} frndings given by the Court below and^is liable^{to be dismissed.}

¶44

In the result, the Criminal^{Petitionis dismissed.}

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions if any,^pending in^{this Criminal}

¶46

Revision Case sha]l also stand dismissed.

¶47

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Iit Si OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

'l The XIX Special Magistrate at Hyderabad. (with records rf any)

¶50

rwo ccs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High courtfor the state of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶51

One CC to Mr Ch. Ravinder,^Advocate IOPUC]

¶52

4 One CC to Ms Kiranmayi,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies

karn glr $

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310912024

JUDGMENT

ca, '1 i1l-. .(, 74 ,
( Q^
(.
o
I ,J fI'
I FrB 2[25
cl
{
s9o-
'.:--.:-'r''

¶59

CRLA.No.666 of 2014

¶60

DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APIPEAL

¶61

9,X#

Gopalakishan Agarwal, Hyd v. Md. Aslam, Secbad and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalakishan Agarwal, Hyd v. Md. Aslam, Secbad and 2 Othrs

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

Pulijala Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Yarram Rajeswar Rao , Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Gayathri Devulapalli Vs State of Telangana And Another

Ishoo Narang and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mumai Ramesh, Vs Sri N. Sudershan Rao and 4 Ors.

Ghulam Mohammed Khan Vs The State of Telangana