HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1130 OF 2006 DATED: 12.09.2011 BETWEEN: Sri Sapthagiri Finance Corporation .. Appellant And Shivapuja Sudershan and another .. Respondents HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1130 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) at Kamareddy in C.C.No.400 of 2002 dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant and acquitting the respondent No.1/ accused of the offence under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. I have heard Sri V.Jithender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the first respondent took a loan of Rs.60,000/- from the appellant finance corporation and in discharge of the said loan, he issued a cheque dated 19.08.2002 for an amount of Rs.69,677/- which was subsequently dishonoured. Thereafter, it appears that the appellant issued a notice and filed a complaint against the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Before the learned trial Court, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked on behalf of the appellant. Whereas, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. 5. PW.1 is the manager of the appellant finance corporation. According to the appellant, PW1 was authorized to file complaint on behalf of the appellant finance corporation. In the cross-examination, PW.1 was questioned about the registration certificate of the partnership firm, required licence for money lending business and also the authorization letter issued by the Firm in favour of PW.1 to prosecute the case. By then the said documents were not filed into the Court. Subsequently, the appellant firm filed Ex.P.8 registration certificate, Ex.P.7 money lending licence issued by the MRO and Ex.P.9, original authorization letter in favour of PW.1 authorizing him to file the case on behalf of the appellant. The learned trial Court, however, held that since all these documents were subsequently filed and the complainant is not the person from whom the first respondent borrowed the amount, the complaint itself is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant firm. It seems that the learned trial Court has taken the view that subsequent filing of the documents will not cure the defect. 6. In my considered view, the view taken by the learned trial Court is wholly erroneous and the documents can be filed at a subsequent stage and if the said documents are filed, the learned trial Court should not reject them outright without examining the validity merely on the ground that they filed at a belated stage. The finding on this aspect recorded by the trial Court which is the basis for dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused is not only erroneous, but contrary to the settled legal position on the subject. 7. Therefore, the judgment dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) at Kamareddy in C.C.No.400 of 2002 is set aside and the case is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment affording opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence, if any, and raise all contentions in support of their respective versions. 8. The criminal appeal is accordingly disposed of as above. __________________ Date: 12.09.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J Note : Issue C.C. in three days. b/o Kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1130 OF 2006 DATE: 12.09.2011