IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRL.A.NO.1643 OF 2004 Date:25.11.2011 Between:- M/s.Posani Farm Chemicals (P) Ltd., rep.by its Chief Executive. ..Appellant/Complainant And Lingam Surender Rao and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.565 of 2002 by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada on 10.02.2004. 2. The appellant herein is the complainant and they filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the accused-Proprietor of the Firm M/s.Amar Fertilizers is one of their customers and they opened an account in their company and he was due an amount of Rs.8,22,346/- as on 21.05.2003 and on demand, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.8,22,346/- bearing No.300212 dated 22.05.2002 and when it was presented, dishonoured for want for funds. Thereafter, the complainant has issued a legal notice demanding to pay the amount due under the said cheque but there is no reply. Hence, he has filed the complaint. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate, he denied about the commission of the offence. 4. In order to establish the offence, P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the complainant and Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court has found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, acquitted him. 6. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 7. When the matter is coming up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the complainant inspite of adjourning the matter and posting today for Judgment. Therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on the material available on record. 8. On perusal of the judgment of the lower Court, it is observed that the lower Court has mainly considered that there is no proof of amount due by the accused to the complainant as on the date of issuance of cheque, as they have not filed the authenticated copy of the account statement, and Ex.P-1-cheque was altered in the date column and as such, the complainant failed to establish the existing debt as on the date of issuance of Ex.P-1. 9. The complainant has marked the cheque as Ex.P-1 and as per the said cheque, there is a correction in the year and ‘2’ was added on either side of ‘00’ and therefore, there is a material alteration in the said cheque. The complainant also filed Ex.P-4-katha account of the accused but as observed by the Magistrate, none on behalf of the complainant has signed the said statement certifying it to be the true extract of statement of account maintained by them. According to the accused, the said cheque was issued when they opened the account with the complainant company in the year 2000. But in view of the correction in the year, it is evident that the contention of the accused that it was issued in the year 2000 at the time of opening of the account as a security but not issued in discharge of the debt by the accused appears to be correct. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the lower Court is justified in finding the accused not guilty and acquitting him. 10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 25th November, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRL.A.NO.1643 OF 2004 Date:25.11.2011 AMD