IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9561 of 2009 DATE: 27.09.2010 Between: Minukoori Raja Narender Reddy …… Petitioner And: State of A.P. through the Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9561 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) in C.C. No.801 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Jangam, Warangal District. Cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant was dishonoured for insufficient funds. There is no dispute that the said cheque was issued towards value of fertilisers purchased by the accused from the complainant’s shop on credit together with interest thereon. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that towards the amount payable to the complainant, the accused executed agreement for sale in favour of the complainant in respect of Ac.2-10 guntas of land and delivered possession of the same to the complainant and that it is noted in the adangal also and that the accused promised to execute a registered sale deed for the said land in favour of the complainant and that towards that obligation, the accused gave cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant. Admittedly till now, the accused did not execute registered document for the land of Ac.2-10 guntas in favour of the complainant. The accused throws blame on the complainant to the affect that if the complainant comes forward to pay stamp duty and registration charges, the accused is always ready and willing to execute a registered sale deed for the land in favour of the complainant. Till today, no such steps are taken. It is a matter which has to be decided by the trial Court after both the parties leading evidence during trial as to who committed default in their obligations. As the matter now stands, legal title for Ac.2-10 guntas of land did not pass to the complainant. So, the complainant is always at liberty to enforce his claim by presenting the cheque in question. I find that prosecution of the accused for offence under Section 138 of the Act is neither malafide nor abuse of process of law. 2) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 27, 2010 KSH