IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.108 of 2007 DATE:05.07.2010 Between: M/s.Pardh Infosys …… Complainant/Appellant And: The State, rep. By Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.108 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the complainant against finding of acquittal recorded by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in the judgment dated 26.10.2006 in C.C. No.359 of 2003 in favour of the 2nd respondent/accused. 2) Ex.P-1 cheque issued by Buddha Kumar (D.W-1) in favour of the complainant was dishonoured by D.W-1’s banker as per Ex.P-2 cheque return memo. Even though Ex.P-1 cheque was issued by D.W-1 in his personal capacity on his personal account, the complainant impleaded the 1st respondent namely M/s.Margo Soft Firm represented by its Managing Director D.W-1 as the accused in the complaint. No cheque was issued by D.W-1 in his capacity as Managing Director of the accused muchless on account of the accused in any bank. Instead of filing the case against D.W-1 in his personal capacity, the complainant has chosen to file the case against an establishment in which D.W-1 is Managing Director. Secondly, after dishonour of cheque, the complainant got issued Ex.P-3 notice to the accused which is a firm or company and not to D.W-1 in his personal capacity. When cheque issued by D.W-1 in his personal capacity was dishonoured, notice should have been issued by the complainant to D.W-1 personally claiming amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In the absence of statutory notice to D.W-1 who is liable under Ex.P-1 cheque, the complaint is not maintainable at all. Since the cheque was not issued by the accused and since the cheque was not issued on bank account of the accused, there is no offence committed by the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This ground alone is sufficient to dismiss the complaint against the accused/2nd respondent. 3) Further, according to the complainant, the cheque was issued towards value payable under data conversion work entrusted by the accused to the complainant. The complainant did not file any work order muchless bill for such amount due under any data conversion work. In the absence of any proof furnished by the complainant in that regard, the lower Court rightly held that Ex.P-1 cheque was not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable liability. Thus, viewed from any angle, the complainant has not succeeded in proving offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. There are absolutely no grounds in law or on facts to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 4) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 5, 2010 KSH