IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.799 AND 800OF 2010 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.799 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Madhu Yarn Traders, rep. by its Proprietor …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others …. Respondents CRIMINAL APPEAL No.800 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Triveni Textiles, rep. by its Proprietor …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.799 AND 800 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: Leave granted. 2. These two appeals are filed against two judgments dated 09-03-2010 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chirala in C.C. Nos.320 & 321 of 2006 by which the lower Court acquitted the accused. 3. It is alleged that there were business transactions between A-1 and A-2 on the one hand and A-3 on the other hand and that for discharge of liability under those transactions, A-2 issued the cheques in question in favour of A-3 and that again there were business transactions between A-3 and the complainant / appellant for which A- 3 became liable to pay money to the appellant and that therefore in discharge of the said liability, A-3 transferred cheques issued by A-2 in his favour, in favour of the appellant and that when the appellant presented those cheques for encashment, those two cheqeus were dishonoured. In the lower Court, during trial of these two cases, the complainant alone examined himself as PW-1 and marked certain documents, evidencing dishonour of cheques and consequential notice issued by the appellant to A-1 to A-3. No evidence was let in by any of the accused in the lower Court. 4. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the complainant / appellant could not prove issuing of cheques by A-2 in favour of A-3 and also could not prove pre-existing liability of A-2 to A-3 due to which the cheques were stated to have been issued by A-2 in favour of A-3. Though in his evidence, the complainant / appellant as PW-1 made attempts to prove pre-existing liability in between himself and A-3, the complainant did not let in any further evidence to prove issuing of cheques in question by A-2 in favour of A-3 and also existence of any pre-existing liability between A-2 and A-3 resulting in issuing of the cheques in favour of A-3. 5. In the absence of leading any such evidence, the lower Court rightly dismissed both the cases for want of proof of the cheques in question and for want of proof of pre-existing liabilities under those two cheques. There are absolutely no grounds in law or on facts to question the findings of the lower Court on this aspect. 6. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed in limini. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J June 14, 2010. KTL