HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal Nos.1042 and 1043 OF 2006 DATED: 06.09.2011 CRL.A.NO.1042 OF 2006 BETWEEN: M/S Navayuga Ready Garments .. Appellant/Complainant And Aryadula Gurunadh Babu and another .. Respondents CRL.A.NO.1043 OF 2006 BETWEEN: M/S Navayuga Ready Garments .. Appellant/Complainant And Aryadula Gurunadh Babu and another .. Respondents HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal Nos.1042 and 1043 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two criminal appeals are filed against the judgment dated 23.02.2004 passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Criminal Appeal No.1042 of 2006 is filed against the judgment in C.C.No.748 of 1999, whereas Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2006 is filed against the judgment in C.C.No.749 of 1999. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 4. M/s Navayuga Readymade Garments, represented by its Managing Partner V. Srinivasa Rao, Shop No.19, Kakavalli Shopping Complex, Vijayawada filed two complaints against Aryadula Gurunadh Babu under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that two cheques bearing Nos.497434 dated 06.04.1999 and 497433, dated 01.08.1999 were issued by him towards discharge of a debt due to the complainant under a katha account relating to purchase of ready made garments and the same were dishonoured when they were presented for collection. 5. In C.C.No.749 of 1999, the complainant was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. Whereas in C.C.No.748 of 1999 PW-1 was examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. 6. The learned trial Court on consideration of the entire evidence on record acquitted the accused in both the cases. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant preferred these two criminal appeals. 7. Excepting the fact that the two cases relate to two different cheques issued on different dates, the entire facts and evidence being one and the same and between the same parties, these two criminal appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 8. The complainant adduced evidence to the effect that the two cheques allegedly issued by the accused towards the amount due under the katha account. However, the learned trial Court after analyzing the entire evidence on record having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case recorded finding of acquittal on the following grounds: (i) In the cross-examination of Pw.1, the Managing Partner of the complainant admitted that even after dishonour of cheaues their firm used to sell garments on credit basis to the accused, some times they used to take signatures on credit bills and some time they did not take signatures on credit bills. The appellant/complainant did not furnish the particulars of account of the respondent/accused which was being maintained with the complainant firm. According to the complainant/appellant the cheque presented in the bank on 02.08.999 was dishonoured on 03.08.1999 and the other cheque presented on 17.05.1999 was dishonoured on 18.05.1999. The firm had authorized PW.1 to file civil or criminal cases by resolution dated 01.04.1999. The learned trial Court was of the view that it was highly unbelievable that before issuance of the cheque, the authorization has been obtained for filing the case against the respondent/accused. (ii) When the respondent specifically contended that he was not running the readymade garments, but was only doing business in old books, the complainant/appellant failed to produce any account books or credit vouchers to show that the respondent had an account with the appellant/complainant firm. With regard to the cheque bearing No.497434, dated 06.04.1999, and the other cheque bearing No.497433, dated 01.08.1999, the learned trial Court was of the view that it is unbelievable that a person could issue a subsequent cheque on a prior date that too four months prior to the issuance of previous cheque. 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court accepted the contentions raised by the respondent/accused that he was doing business in old books at Shop No.7, Durga Complex, Vijayawada, he issued two cheques, without filing the columns of date and name of the payee to his original lessee, subsequently, he closed the old book shop and handed over the shop to the original lessee and that the complainant having colluded with the original lessee filed the present case by using the said cheques. In the present case, the accused from the very facts and circumstances of the case and the answers elicited during the course of the cross-examination of PW.1, could able to rebut the presumption which is in favour of the appellant/accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned trial Court therefore, rightly acquitted the respondent in both the cases. 10. This Court will interfere with the finding of acquittal only when the said findings are not based on evidence or perverse. But, in the instant case, the learned trial Court recorded all the findings basing on the evidence forthcoming before it and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and held that the accused could be able to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in each case does not require any interference. 10. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal fail and the same are dismissed confirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. __________________ Date: 06.09.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal Nos.1042 and 1043 OF 2006 DATE: 06.09.2011