Dismissed

Rajendra Paper Boards v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC31 Jan 2025CRLA/587/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant appealed against acquittal in two Section 138 NI Act cases concerning two dishonoured cheques for about Rs.19.73 lakhs against a running account. The court found tax invoices unsigned, payment receipts un-rebutted, and evidence that the cheques were issued as security, holding no compelling reasons existed to interfere with the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal appeals dismissed; acquittal of the accused affirmed.

Rajendra Paper Boards Vs the State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE.SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos: 587 and 590 OF 2018

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 587 OF 2018

¶8

Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment daled^13.07.2017 passed in C.C.No. 2312015 on the file of the Court of the Special lvlagistrate-V at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Rajendra Paper Boards, Rep by its Proprietor, [\4r. Ramesh Chand Jain, Sio. Late Sri Kishore Chand Mutha, having its Office at 558, Srikrupa^lVlarket, Malkpaet,^.Hyderabad and branch office at 15-2-41 , Gowliguda Chaman,^Near Telephone Exchange, Hyderabad.

¶11

...Petitioner/Gomplainant

¶12

AND

¶13

State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad

¶14

Mis Devaja offset Printers, Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri Devi Prasad @^Durga Prasad, having its Office at 5-182-1-A, Alwyn Society, Fateh Nagar, Hyderabad

¶15

... RespondenUAccused

¶16

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 590 OF 2018

¶17

Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 13.07.2017 passed in C.C.No. 2212015 on the file of the Court of the Special Magistrate-V at Hyderabad.

¶18

Between:

¶19

Rajendra Paper Eloards, Rep. by its Proprietor, [/r. Rarresh Chand Jain, S/o. Late Sri Kishore Chand Mutha, having its Office at 558, Srikrupa Market, Malkpaet, Hyderabad and branch office at 15-2-41 , Gowliguda Chaman, Near Telephone Exchange, tlyderabad.

¶20

...Petitioner/Complainant

¶21

AND

¶22

.1 . State Of Telangana Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad

¶23

M/s Devaja offset Printers, Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri Devr Prasad @ Durga Prasad, having its Office at 5-'182-1-A, Alwyn Society, F,ateh Nagal Hyderabad

¶24

... Res po n d enUAcc u sed

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant in both cases : Sri, Damodar Mundra Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in both cases: Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in both cases: Sri M. Appa Reddy

¶26

The Court delivered the following:

¶27

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER} CRIMINAL APPEAL^{Nos.587 and 59O OF 2018}

¶28

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶29

Crl.A.No.S87 of 2018^{is filed questioning the acquittal of the} accuqed under Section^{138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct vide} in CC.No.23 of 2015^{bY theSPecial} Judgment dt.l3.O7.2o17 Magistrate-V, Hyderabad.

¶30

Cr1.A.No.590 of 2018^{is filed questioning the acquittal of the} accused under Section^{138 of the NegotiableInstrumentsAct vide} Judgment dt. 13.07.2017 in.^{CC.No.22of2015 by theSpecial} Magistrate-V, Hyderabad.

¶31

Since the complainant^{and the accused are one and the same} in both the cases and the transactions^{inter se are the same, both} the appeals are disposed^{off by way of this common Judgment.}

¶32

The complainant ltrm was doing^{businessin'Bill Boards,Cali} Cloth etc. The accused used to^{purchase the products of the} complainant firm and was maintaining^{a running account. The} accused purchased material worth Rs.26,33,000/-.^{After payment of} Rs.6,60,000/- by way of RTGS, for^{the balance amount of}

¶33

¶34

¶35

Rs.19,73,000/^., two cheques were issued by the accused. Cheque bearing No.96244'l clate d 17.06.2O14 was issued for an amount of Rs.B,42,OO0/ lsubject matter of CC.No.23/2015 and

¶36

Crl.A.No.587/ 201ti); Cheque bearing No.962445, dated 21.04.2O14 was issued for an alnount of Rs. 1 1,31,000/^- (subject matter of CC.No.22 l20 I 5 and Crl.A.No.590 /2018.

¶37

The che.lue No.962445 for Rs.11,31,000/- was dishonoured due to alterations ancl corrections on 10.O6.20 I^zl. The other cheque No.962447 lor Rs.i1,42,000/ when presentecl for clearance was returned unp:,icl on the ground of insufficient f:nds on 04.O7.2014 Though notic( s wcre issued, since the amount rvas not paid by the accused, complaint was filed

¶38

In botl-r llre cases, tax invoices were hled by the complainant as Exs.P1 to P3, along with the returnecl cheque, postal acknowledgmt nt and also one attested copy of I'[ returns for the year 20t4 2015

¶39

The accrrst-d examined himself as DW. 1 zLnd Exs.D1 to D12 were marked in CC.No.22/2015 and Exs.D1 anrl D2 were marked in CC.No.23l201 s

¶40

¶41

In CC.No.22 l2ol5,^{Ex.Dl is the voter ID of Durga Prasad;} Ex.D2-part of document^{showing payment and issuance of blank} cheques; Exs.D3 to^{D11 are payment receipts and Ex D12 is the} copy of application^{dated 03.07.2O14 glen to the CTO,Ferozdu} CirclJ, Nampally,^{Hyderabad,intimating shutting down the business'}

¶42

g. In CC.No.23 l2Ol5, Ex.Dl is the receipt dated^18'O4'2013 passecl by the complainant^{in favourof accused for Rs'50,000} l-^and Ex.D2isthevoucherdated2l.08.2013containingcomplainant's signature

¶43

The defence of the^{accused is that there is no outstanding and} all dues were cleared.^{The chequeswhich were initiallygiven towards} security were misused^{by the gomplainant and falsecases were filed.}

¶44

1 1 . Learned Magistrate^{passedJudgmentin both the caseson} 13.07 .2017 and acquitted^{the accused in both the cases on the} following grounds;

¶45

i) The complainant has not^{frled any documentaryevidence to show} his day-to-day business^{transactions.Furtherseparateaccounts of} the business maintained^{by him in between the complainant and the}

¶46

¶47

accused were also not filed, though he claime<l to have maintained separate acco'-rnts for each of his customers.

¶48

ii) There is no proof that the complainant delivered goods in terms of invoices marl<cd as Exs.P1 to P3.

¶49

iii) PW 1 in his cross-examination admitted that- the accused used to pay by wav of cash at shop, however, PW. 1 never used to issue receipt for thr payment received by way of cash, which supports the defence of the accused that the entire amount was paid.

¶50

iv) The said adnLission of receiving money in ceLsh is contrary to the statement of I']W.1 that he received RTGS payment for Rs.6,60,0O0/and for the rerrzrining amount, cheques were isstred.

¶51

v) The compJainant has not liled any deliverl. challans with the signatures of the accused as token of receiving materiai in terms of rnvolces.

¶52

vi) For not fili-rg the reievant documents, an adverse inference has to be drawn under Section 1 14 (g) of the Evidence Act

¶53

vii) The complainant has faiied to prove that lhere was any legally enforceable dr:bt

¶54

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellar:Lt would submit that when the case of the accused who examined himself as DWl is that

¶55

the entire amounts were repaid,^{the learned Magistrate committed} an error in Iinding that the^{complainant has not hled proof of} delivery of goods. Once the issuance of^{chequesare admitted,} presumption has to be drawn under Section^{139 of the Negotiable} Instiuments act. The^{accused has faileclto rebutthe presumption} even by preponderance of^probability.

¶56

Having^gone through the^{evidenceon record, the defence of the} accused is that the two^{chequeswere givenby way of securityon} 15.04.2013. trx.D4 is the acknowledgment^{of receivingthe cheques} in question in both the cases, on^{15.04.2013.Exs.P1 and P3 are the} tax invoices dated 22.06.2O13 and^{17.06.2014 respectively, issued} subsequent to the cheques being issued.^{Ex.P2 is tax invoice dated} O7.O2.2O13 which is prior in time to the^{issuanceof cheques.The} accused gave evidence that goods were taken^{and accordingly} payments were also made. Ex.D12 (marked in CC.No.22l2O15)^{is an} application seeking cancellation of the business^{of the accused,} which was handed over to the area CTO on^{O3.O7.2OI4.Exs.D3to} D 1 1 are the payment receipts. Though it is^allegedbythe complainant that the payment receipts^{were fabricated, however,no} steps were taken to either lodge a complaint^before the^competent

¶57

¶58

,/'

¶59

forum or in any manner^prove that the signatcries^{in the payment} receipts who z dmittedly are related to the complainant's^{firm were} examined to se^y that the documents^{were fabriceLted.}

¶60

.The complainant thodgh liled Exs.Pl tc^{P3 which are tax} invoices, the s,ignature of the^accused is^{not appearingon the tax} invoices. It rva; admitted by PW.1 that^{signatures would be taken on} the tax invoice s ones^goodsare supplied.^{No expianationis givenby} the complainant as to why the signatures^are not^{appearing on the} tax invoices, Exs.P1 to P3

¶61

1 5. The com pl;rinant stated that after the^prllgment of^{RTGS for} Rs.6,60,O0O/- , for the balance amount of Rs. 9,73,OOO/-, the^two subject chequ:s u.ere issued. According to the complaint, the^total amount of Rs.6,60,000/was paid through RTGS in between 17.O9.2O13 and 24.03.2014. According to tlrr: complainant, the cheques in qu:stion rvere issued after 24.O3.201rl. F{owever, the said claim of the complainant is falsified by trx.D4 which reflects cheques being issuecl on 1 5.04.2 0 13.

¶62

¶63

The burden on the^{accused in a prosecutionunder section138} of the Negotiable^{InstrumentsAct toexplain hiscase, isby} preponderance of probability.^{As already discussed:}

¶64

i) the tax invoices do not^{have the signatures of the accused'} ii)' The complai.t^.tt^t ^"^{falselystated that the cheques in} question were issued after 24.O3.2014'

¶65

iii) Except denying the receipls^{filed to prove paymentby lhe} accused, the complainant^{has not taken any steps to} disprove the receiPts.

¶66

iv) The claim of the^{accused that cheques were issued towards} security is substantiated^{by Ex.D4.}

¶67

The complainant^{has not come to the Court with clean hands} and suppressed the facts,^{which is evident from the documents Iiled} by the accused and admissions^{made by complainantduring trial'}

¶68

In Ravi Sharma v. State^{(Governmentof NCT of Delhif and} another', the Hon'ble Supreme^{Court held that while dealing with an} appeal against acquittal,^{the appellate court has to consider whether} the trial Court's view can be^{termedas a possible one, particularly}

¶69

I 12022; 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

¶70

¶71

when evidence on record has^{been analysed. Th': reason is that an} order of acquiltal adds up to^{the presumption ol rnnocence in favour} of the accusecl. l'hus, the^{appellate court has to be relativelyslow in} reversing the^t- rder of the trial court^{rendering acrquittal.}

¶72

tg. In Ghureg Lal u. State of tlttor^{Pradesh' the Hon'ble} Supreme Cou-t after referring^{to several Judgments regarding the} settled principles of^{1aw and the powers of appellate Court in} reversing the c,rder of acquittal,^{held at paraTO, as follows:}

¶73

"70. ht the light of th.e aboue, the lligh Court and other appellate Courts shot'ld follotr the uteLl-settled^{pinciplescrgstt,l.lizedby number of} Judgments i.f it is goilg to ouerrule or othetuise disitb^{the tialcourt's} acquittal:

¶74

Tht appellate court may only ouemtle or^{olLtenuisedisturb the} tiol court's aiquittal if it h.as^"uery substantial^{and compelling reasons"'} for^{doing so.}

¶75

A nunrber of iftstonces aise in uhich the aptrtellate^{court uould} haue "uertt sllbstontial and compelling reasons" tt> discard^the tial court's decj;ion. "Verg substantial and compelling r€rriiorlS" eist^uhen:

¶76

i) The tial coud's conclusion utith regard to the facts is^patpably wrong: ii) TLtr tial court's decision tLtas based on an erroneous uieu of law;

¶77

iii) Tht fial court's^judgment is likelg to result in^"graue miscariage of^justice";

¶78

iu) The entire approach of the tial couft in deahng uith the euidence tu as p atent' 11 il l.e^g al; u) Th<' tictl court's^judgment wc.s mctn'f'zstlg ut1-just and unreasotml'le;

¶79

ui) Tht tnal court has ignored the euidence or nisread tlrc material euidence or has ignored moteial docunu:nts like dging declaration;/ report of tlrc ball[stic Ex.Pert,^etc.

¶80

'12008.;^{l0 Sup."n,e (lourtClases450}

¶81

¶82

uii)This list is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2.^'I'he appellate court m.ust alLuags giue proper ueight and consideration o the findings of the tial court. 3. If ttuo reasonable uiews can be reached_ one that leads to acquitta| the other to conuiction _the High Courts/ oppellate courts must n e in fauour of the accused-"

¶83