Under Section U/s

*pdf*
Mobin: No Cross & Proof reading done

Date of typing 25.10.19
Copyright changes
under Section = u/S.
2004 LAWDIGITAL.IN......(A.P.)
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
P.S.NARAYANA, J.
Criminal Revision Petition No.1625 of 1999, D/17.11.2004.
M/s.Sufala Finance Private Limited
Vs
B.Narasimha Reddy
Counsels:
Mr.B.Viswanatha Reddy, for the Petitioner
Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
P.S.Narayana, J. - M/s.Sufala Finance Private Limited, filed the complaint C.C.No.679 of 1999 on the file
of 9 Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, u/S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter in short
referred to as ‘Act’ for the purpose of convenience).
2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the complainant is a company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 carrying on business relating to hire purchase, financing, instalment purchase of various items repre-
sented by its Accountant K.Krishna Reddy, who is authorised by the complainant.
It is also the case of the appellant/complainant that the accused had approached the complainant along with the
guarantor for financial assistance to purchase a Bajaj Chetak Scooter which was accordingly financed to a
tune of Rs.20,000/- on 17.12.1995 to the accused after executing the necessary documents. The accused
agreed to repay the amount in fifteen monthly equal instalments, but failed to do so. After so many requests and
reminders to clear the above said liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.189596 dated 20.10.1996
for an amount of Rs.11,176/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Mahaboob Gunj Branch, Hyderabad, and
the complainant presented the above said cheque with its bankers M/s.Central Bank of India, Gudimalkapur
Branch, Hyderabad on 22.10.1996. The same cheque was returned dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insuf-
ficient funds’ vide memo dated 23.10.1996. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 04.11.1996 by
registered post with acknowledgement due as well as under certificate of posting. The accused received the
same on 06.11.1996. The acknowledgement was received by the complainant on 09.11.1996. In spite of
serving the notices, the accused neither gave any reply nor paid the amount as demanded.
The complainant submits that the accused has issued the above said cheque undertaking that the same will be
honoured as and when presented for realization, contrary, the accused deliberately with a mala fide intention,
to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain for himself did not maintain sufficient balance in his
account rendering himself liable to punishment u/S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the com-
plaint.
3. The complaint was taken on file as C.C.No.679 of 1996. On behalf of the complainant PW1 was examined
and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. The defence of the accused is that there is no legally enforceable debt.
4. The contention of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 17.12.1995 for
purchase of Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.APO 9K 2517 under Ex.P6 and agreed to repay the same in
fifteen equal instalments and paid only four instalments and thereafter, committed default and on 20.10.1996
the accused had issued Ex.P8 for Rs.11,176/- to the complainant towards six instalments payable with penal
interest. Exs.P1 to P7 are the documents for proving the transaction. A finding was recorded by the learned
Judge that the ledger was not filed and the appellant/complainant also had not filed the registration certificate of
the scooter to show that it was purchased under hire purchase agreement. It is no doubt true that the evidence
of PW1 alone was recorded, and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. Except the finding that the complainant was
unable to establish the legally enforceable debt, all other formalities to be complied with under the Act had been
satisfied. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant/complainant has
to be given a further opportunity to produce further evidence in this regard.
5. Hence, the order of acquittal dated 12.04.1999 made in C.C.No.679 of 1996 is hereby set aside and the
matter is remanded to the 9 Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned 9 Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad, may provide further opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence, if any, on the aspect
of legally enforceable debt and to decide the matter in accordance with law. The Criminal Appeal is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
Appeal allowed.
*****

Under Section U/s

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Under Section U/s

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Under Section U/s

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

pdf

Mobin: No Cross & Proof reading done

You might also like