IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 862 OF 2008 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nellore in C.C.No.173 of 2006, dated 16.04.2008. Between: M/s. Numbur Laboratories, rep. by its Managing Partner Namburi Mohan Rao, He being rep. by the Manager of the Firm and his General Power of Attorney Holder K.Subrahmanyam Reddy. ...Complainant/Appellant AND 1. Tavva Venkata Subbarao S/o Purnachandra Rao, C/o S.R. Enterprises, Near Kotta Kaaluva, Vetapalem (V) & (M), Prakasam District. ...Accused 2. State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. D Sangeetha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: 1 APHC010095402008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 862 OF 2008 Between: M/s. Numbur Laboratories ...APELLANT AND Tavva Venkata Subbarao The State OfA P and Others ...RESPODENT(S ) Counsel for the Apellant: 1.DSANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT:- The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant as against the Judgment dated 16.04.2008, passed in C.C.No.173 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore, whereby the learned Magistrate found the respondent No. 1/accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Nl Act and accordingly acquitted them of the said offence. 2 2. The appellant/complainant filed the complaint before Court, alleging as follows. the trial The complainant is a manufacturer of Aqua and Poultry Feed and Nutritional Feed Supplements. The accused used to and Nutritional Feed Supplements from the During the course of business transactions, complainant to a tune of Rs.48,457/- amount, the accused issued 11.07.2005 for Rs.48,000/- drawnon Andhra Bank purchase Aqua Feed complainant on credit basis, the accused indebted to the and for discharge of the said a cheque bearing No.325059,dated Ongole branch. When the complainant presented the said cheque on 11.07.2005 for collection through State Bank of India, Barracks Nellore returned as dishonoured by Andhra Bank, Ponnur Branch the said cheque was on 14.07.2005 on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued statutory notice to the accused and when the accused did not pay the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque, the present complaint was lodged. 3. The trial Court furnished copies of the documents to the accused, and when the accused was examined under Section 251 CrPC, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.W.1 examined and Exs.P1 to P22 were got marked. was After closure of the ■fei==> / 3 complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the complainant witnesses. The accused denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Nl Act and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal came to be filed by the complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that from the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with the recitals in Exs.P1 to P22, it is clear that there is legally enforceable debt owed by the accused to the complainant, and the cheque issued by the accused in discharge of the said debt was dishonoured, when presented by the complainant, and therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Nl Act, but the trial Court has not considered these aspects in right perspective and erred in acquitting the accused. Hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Appeal and convict the accused. 6. Perused the record. Now, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable 7. - lr& K 4 under Section 138 of the Nl Act and whether the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference by this Court ? 8. It is the case of the complainant that purchase aqua feed and other basis, from the complainant, which i Feed and Nutritional Feed Supplements,and business transactions, the accused indebted of Rs.48,457/-, and for discharge of the said Ex.P3-cheque bearing No.325059,dated drawnon Andhra Bank, Ongole branch. When the the accused used to nutritional feed supplement on credit manufacturer of Aqua and Poultry during the course of to the complainant to a tune amount, the accused issued IS a 11.07.2005 for Rs.48,000/- complainant presented the said cheque on 11.07.2005 for collection through State Barracks Nellore, the said cheque Andhra Bank, Ponnur Branch Bank of India was returned as dishonoured by on 14.07.2005 on the ground of insufficiency of funds. After issuing statutory notice, as the accused did not pay the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque complaint was lodged. the present 9. P.W.1 reiterated the averments in the complaint, in his evidence. According to P.W.1, Ex.P22, confirmation letter issued by the accused, proves the existence of legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant. According to the accused, the subject cheque Ex.P3 blank cheque obtained by the complainant from the was a accused at the time of entering into agreement, and he relies on Ex.P10-order form which 5 shows that the subject cheque was issued on 10.06.2004, but not on 11.07.2005 as contended by the complainant. 10. Ex.PIO is the order form under which the accused placed order for certain quantity of goods from the complainant firm and the value of the said products was mentioned as Rs.21,227.58 ps. In the said order form, account number of the accused is mentioned as 19523 Andhra Bank, Ponnur Branch in the column prescribed for bank address. Further, the cheque number is mentioned as 325059 and it is a post dated cheque, and it is also mentioned that the cheque is an empty cheque.A perusal of record shows that the number of the said blank cheque mentioned in Ex.PIO and Ex.P3 cheque are one and the same. There was certain material altercations in the cheque made in the pencil. Further, the ink used for signature of the accused on the cheque and for making entries in the cheque, is different. Therefore, the accused is able to rebut that the subject cheque Ex.P3 was issued along with Ex.PIO on 10.06.2004, but not on 11.07.2005, as contended by the complainant, and the ink with which he signed in the said cheque is different from the ink used for filling entries in it. Therefore, Ex.P3-cheque was received by the complainant even prior to delivery of stock mentioned in Ex.PIO. In the circumstances, it can safely be concluded that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability under Ex.P3-cheque. i i 6 11. In view of the aforesaid the complainant failed to debt and accordingly found the Section 138 of the N.I.Act and reasons, learned Magistrate held that prove the subsistence of legally enforceable accused not guilty of the offence under acquitted him of the said offence, impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate from any infirmity and this Court has The does not suffer no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Magistrate. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment dated 16.04.2008, passed in C.C.No.173 of 2006 the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Offences, Nellore. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. on the file of Trial of Prohibition and if any, pending in this Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for trial of Excise Offences, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. One CC to Smt. D Sangeetha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Amaravati [OUT] 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati. 5. Three CD Copies Prohibition & Pradesh at at SAM sree HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 JUDGMENT 5 0 8 flCT 2® ^ CRLA.No.862 of 2008 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL