IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 758 OF 2007 oM Oi S- Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Judgment dated 22.03.2007 in C.C.No.383 of 2004 passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Between: Satyanarayana Mittal, S/o R.K.Mittal, Aged 38 Years, Proprietor M/s. Auto Crate India Wholesale Dealer Leyland, Tata Tippers & Spares, Situated at 32- 1-195/2, Bowdara Road, Visakhapatnam. ...APPELLANT / COMPLAINANT AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati. 2. Real Fab India Pvt. Ltd.,, rep. by its Managing Director, Karunakar Rao, Shop No.37, RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam. 3. Smt. K.Devi Rao, Authorized Signatory of Real Fab India Pvt.Ltd., Shop No.37, RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam. 4. K.Karunakar Rao, Managing Director, Real Fab India Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.37, RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 1 APHC010027092007 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: 758 OF2007 Between: ...APELLANT Satyanarayana Mittal AND ...RESPODENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Appeal has been filed, by the complainant, as against the Judgment dated 22.03.2007, passed in C.C.No.383 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The appellant/complainant filed a complaint against the respondents 2 to 5/A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging as follows. 2. 2 The complainant is the Proprietor of M/s Auto Create India Limited dealing with the sale of tippers, having its office at Bowdara Road (Private) spare parts of Leyland, Tata, 407 V Belts, Visakhapatnam. A.1 is a Private Director i.e. A3, and the A.2 is Limited Company represented by its Managing the authorized signatory of A. 1. A.1 represented by A.3 had taken spare parts worth Rs. 1,26,988/- in ot-fofrom the complainant and the balance amount due was confirmed to A.3. A.2, as the authorized signatory of the a cheque for Rs. 1,26,988/-, dated 08.02.2003 drawn Aseelmetta, Visakhapatnam for company, issued on Global Trust Bank, payment of the amount due. But, when cheque was presented in Punjab National Bank and lastly on 29.07.2003, it was disnonoured on all on 10.02.2003, 01.03.2003 occasions endorsing ■insufficient funds'. A.2 issued the cheque in the capacity of authorized signatory of A.1 company, and A.3, being the Managing Director of A.1 company, is also responsible for issuance of the said cheque and are liable for the offence. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 12.08.2003 and the same was neither served as such, all nor returned and the notices issued to A.2 and A.3 were returned endorsing ‘intimation not claimed’. Hence, the complaint. served, addressee 3. The trial Court furnished copies of the documents to the and when the accused were examined under Section 251 CrPC, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. accused 4. During trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.1 examined and Exs.P1 to P8 and XI were got marked. and 2 were After closure of the 3 complainant side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC explaining the incriminating material appearing against them 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 them. 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 the learned Magistrate, having held that there was a subsisting debt between the complainant and the accused, erred in holding that the subject cheque was not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, the subject cheque was issued by A.2, in the capacity of authorized person of A.1 company, for discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and when the said He submits that cheque was presented, it was dishonoured. He, therefore, submits that the accused are liable for punishment for the offence 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. There is no representation on behalf Respondents/accused, though notices were served on them. 4 7. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1/ State. Public 8. Now, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Nl Act and whether the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference by this Court ? It is the case of the complainant that he is the Proprietor of M/s Auto Create India (Private) Limited, and A.1 is a Private Limited Company represented by its Managing Director i.e. A3, and the A.2 is the authorized signatory of A.1. 9. A.1 represented by A.3 had taken spare parts worth Rs. 1,26,988/- in to-to from the complainant and the balance amount due was confirmed to A.3. A.2, as the authorized signatory of the company, issued Ex.PI-cheque for Rs.1,26,988/-, dated 08.02.2003 drawn on Global Trust Bank, Aseelmetta, Visakhapatnam for payment of the amount due. But, when cheque was presented in Punjab National Bank, it was disnonouredwith endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. After issuance of the statutory notice, as the accused failed to pay the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque, the present complaint is lodged. 10. The complainant, as P.W.1, reiterated the material averments in the complaint. It is his evidence that A.3, being Managing Director of A.1 company, purchased spare parts from the complainant on credit, to a tune of Rs.1,26,988/-. EXS.P7 and P8-copy of receipt and receipt book respectively. would substantiate the same. It is his evidence that to discharge the said amount due, A.2, being the authorized signatory of A.1 company, issued Ex.P1-cheque in favour of the company, but when the same was presented, the said cheque was dishonoured vide Ex.P2-cheque return memo and Ex.P3-advice memo issued by Punjab National Bank, evidence that thereafter, after issuing the statutory notice, as the accused failed to pay the amount due under Ex.P1, the present complaint is lodged. The evidence of P.W.2-Manager of Punjab National Bank, Visakhapatnam It is his further branch would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to presentation of subject cheque Ex.P1 in the Bank and the return thereof with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. A.2 did not deny issuance of Ex.P1-cheque. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to discredit his evidence regard to business transactions between the complainant and the accused. Therefore, considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly held complainant is able to establish that there is subsisting debt on the date of issuance of Ex.PI-cheque by A.2. with that the 11. Coming to cross-examination of P.W.1, it is admitted that he did not know whether A.2 is personally liable for the said debt and whether A.2 i: the authorized signatory of A.1 company and that he cannot say whether Ex.PI-cheque belongs to A.1 company and it was drawn on the account maintained by A.1 company. IS Further, a perusal of the complaint shows that it was nowhere averred that A.2 and A.3 were in charge of, and responsible for, conduct of business of A.1 company. Insofar as A.2 is concerned, P.W.1 6 ' himself admitted i in cross-examination that he does not know whether A. 2 is company. Further, there is no averment in the authorized signatory of A.1 complaint that A.2 was i of A.1 company. Unless there is in-charge of, and responsible for, conduct of business a specific averment to that extent that A.2 was in-charge of, and responsible for, conduct of business of A.1 company A.2 cannot be held liable.Further as admitted by P.W.1 himself, he does more not know whether A.2 is authorized signatory of A.1 being Managing Director of A.1 company. However, company, A.3 is liable for the legal action, in terms of Section 141 of the NI Act. 12. When A.2 is held to be not in-charge of. and not responsible for, day to day affairs of A.1 whether A.2 is the authorized signatory of A.1 company and when P.W.1 himself is not definite company, and when Ex.P1- cheque does not contain seal or stamp of A.1 company, it cannot be held that the said cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt by A.1 The subject does not contain signature of A.3, who is Managing Director of A.1 company. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the company. complainant cannot be allowed to take shelter under the available under Section 139 of the Nl Act. presumption Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the accused are not liable the offence under Section 138 of the Nl Act. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly found the not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Nl Act, and there compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits. accused are no 7 Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming Judgment dated 22.03.2007, passed in C.C.No.383 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO^^FICER To, 1. The II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. [with records If any] 2. One CC to Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 5. Three CD Copies MV RAM HIGH COURT DATED; 30/04/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.758 of 2007 5f 0 4 SEP 2025 K Co Sectii DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL