IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.338 of 2008 Between: M/s. Ruchira Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director Smt. M. Jayalakshmi .. Petitioner/complainant AND State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents/accused JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment in C.C. No.9 of 2005 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabnad, dated 05-11-2007, by which the accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the complainant chit fund company claimed the accused to have joined as a member of chits of the value of Rs.50,000/- and to have lifted the prize amounts, but committed default in payment of monthly subscriptions accumulating the arrears resulting in his execution of an undertaking on 02-11-1998 about the liability to pay the outstanding sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, for which a cheque bearing No.056658 in favour of Andhra Bank, Saidabad for Rs.1,00,000/- was given as security. The accused was further claimed to have not paid the sum in spite of repeated demands and the complainant claimed to have presented the cheque given as security by the accused to the bank for clearance. When it was retuned as referred to drawer, a statutory notice was issued to the accused, but still the amount due was not paid and hence, the complaint. 3. After taking cognizance of the case, the Magistrate has furnished copies of documents to the accused on his appearance and examined him under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he denied the allegations. During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.16 were marked and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No defence evidence was produced on his behalf. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting that the only defence taken by the accused was that the cheque in question was issued towards security not within the province of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Referring to Taher N. Khambati v. M/s. Vinayak Enterprises, Secunderabad[1] and Laxminivas Agarwal v. Andhra Semi Conductors Pvt. Ltd.[2], the trial Court had concluded that the cheque in question issued as security for repayment of the amounts specified, cannot be brought within the province of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court also referred to the decisions of Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Courts cited before it in this regard to the same effect and consequently acquitted the accused. 5. The complainant preferred the present appeal with leave contending that the legally enforceable liability admitted by the accused and presumed statutorily on the issuance of the cheque could not have been construed as not attracting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even assuming the cheque to have been issued as security. 6. Heard Sri Ashish Samat, learned counsel representing Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and the 2nd respondent is represented by Sri J.C. Francis, learned counsel. 7. The point for consideration is whether the conclusion of the trial Court that the issuance of the cheque towards security is outside the pale of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is susceptible to any interference herein ? 8. Point: The evidence of P.W.1 herself is a reiteration of the allegation made in the complaint that in addition to the execution of an undertaking on 02-11-1998, the cheque in question was also issued for Rs.1,00,000/- simultaneously as security and the presentation of the cheque for encashment was admitted throughout to be on 15-10-2004, on which it was dishonoured on 16-10-2004. The cross-examination of P.W.1 had an admission that no document was filed to show the membership of the accused in any chit group of the complainant company and that Ex.A.2 undertaking itself disclosed that Ex.P.5 cheque was issued towards security. On this factual background, the decision in Taher N. Khambati v. M/s. Vinayak Enterprises, Secunderabad (1 supra) straight away appears applicable, wherein it was laid down that the practice of obtaining blank cheques and putting the debtors in fear of presentation insisting on discharge of debts at any time will lead to an abuse of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and cannot be permitted. 9. Sri Asish, learned counsel, of course, rightly relied on ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer[3], wherein the decision of Kerala High Court following Taher N. Khambati v. M/s. Vinayak Enterprises, Secunderabad (1 supra) was reversed by the Apex Court. The learned counsel also placed reliance on M/s. General Auto Sales v. Vijayalakshmi[4], wherein following ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer (3 supra), the Kerala High Court interpreted even a blank cheque given towards liability or even as security to be leading to criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the filled up cheque presented to the bank is dishonoured. 10. While it is true that these two precedents relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant lend some support to the forceful submissions of the learned counsel, the question was examined in depth again by this Court in Laxminivas Agarwal v. Andhra Semi Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (2 supra), which was also relied on by the trial Court. The learned Judge found that the principle laid down in Taher N. Khambati v. M/s. Vinayak Enterprises, Secunderabad (1 supra) was not disagreed in ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer (3 supra) by the Apex Court, which only distinguished the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as having no relationship to the contractual relations concerned before the Apex Court. In the case before His Lordship also, the accused made a promise to repay the claim and issued a cheque, filled up by the complainant later and presented for encashment, but dishonoured. The learned Judge refused to bring the same within the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while distinguishing the other decisions from the Apex Court and Kerala High Court cited before him. The accused was held not liable to be prosecuted following Taher N. Khambati v. M/s. Vinayak Enterprises, Secunderabad (1 supra). The decision continues to hold the field with no dissenting or overruling decision of this Court being brought to the notice of the Court and that apart, the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Courts relied on by the trial Court in its judgment also appear to be to the same effect. If so, the cheque in question admittedly issued as security in 1998 and presented for encashment in 2004 cannot create any liability against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on its dishonour and the acquittal of the accused cannot be interfered with and accordingly the criminal appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-10-2011 Svv [1] 1995 Crl.L.J. 560 (A.P.) [2] 2006 (1) ALD (Crl) 300 (A.P.) [3] (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 426 [4] 2005 Cri.L.J. 1454