THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.10 of 2006 BETWEEEN: Tirumala Venkateswrappa Cotton Company … Appellant AND 1. A.K.S.Spinning Mills … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.10 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This is complainant’s appeal against acquittal of A1 and A2 who are respondents 1 and 2 of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). There is no dispute about drawing of Exs.P4 to P6 cheques in favour of the complainant by A1 firm represented by its Managing Partner A2 towards the business transactions between the parties relating to lint bales. Subsequently, the accused gave ‘stop payment’ instructions to their banker; as a result of which Exs.P4 to P6 cheques were dishonoured as per Exs.P7 to P10- cheque return memos and intimation. Thereupon, the complainant got issued Ex.P11 notice to the accused. Exs.P20 and P21 are the reply notices got issued by A2. After trial, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoni, convicted A1 and A2 and acquitted A3 to A5 and A7 to A10. The case against A6 stood abated, as he was no more. As against the said convictions and consequential passing of sentences, A1 and A2 filed appeal before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, which Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and acquitted A1 and A2. Therefore, the complainant is before this Court by way of this appeal. 2. On a reading of the material on record, there appears to be no dispute with regard to business transactions between the complainant and A1 in lint and drawing of Exs.P4 to P6 cheques by A1 in favour of the complainant. According to the accused, the amount due by the accused firm to the complainant was discharged and inspite of telephonic request, the complainant did not return the cheques. In support of the defence version, the accused examined DW1 and marked Exs.D1 to D20. Admittedly, DW1 worked as clerk in the complainant concern. DW1 was signing in several business documents on behalf of the complainant. Exs.D1 to D5- Cess Permit Receipts, Exs.D6 to D8- Carbon Copies of Way Bills in Form No.10, Exs.D9 to D15- Way Bills were all signed by DW1 representing the complainant company. Ex.D16 is letter dated 09.04.1999. The complainant as PW1 admits that he received Demand Drafts for Rs.49,200/- mentioned in letter dated 02.03.1999, which was signed and acknowledged by DW1. The said letter relates to sending of Demand Draft for Rs.49,200/- by A1 to the complainant through DW1. But PW1 disputes receipt of amount mentioned in Ex.D17 letter to the extent of Rs.81,000/- through DW1. PW1 admits to have received Exs.D18 and D19 letters dated 06.05.1999 and 10.07.1999, but PW1 did not give any reply to those letters. PW1 admits that the accused requested him through telephone to send back the cheques, but he replied that he did not receive any amount and so he would not send back the cheques. PW1 also admits that some of the Demand Drafts were received by his clerk, DW1. In those circumstances and in the light of the above documentary and oral evidence, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that DW1 had authority, if not implied authority, to receive payments on behalf of the complainant. DW1 claims that he worked with the complainant till August, 2000. If the complainant did not receive any amount from DW1, which amounts were given by A1 to DW1 as clerk of the complainant, then remedy of the complainant is against DW1 and not against A1 who parted with amount towards discharge of debt due to the complainant under the account. 3. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the accused did not file any documents like account books or receipts or income tax returns to show that the accused made payments to DW1 towards credit of the amount due to the complainant. In my opinion, filing of such documents by the accused in this criminal case may not be necessary, as they examined DW1 on their behalf in order to prove the payments made by them to DW1 for onward transmission to the complainant. When DW1 admits receipt of amounts, then it becomes superfluous for the accused to produce any more documentary evidence in support of the said admitted payments. Having regard to the evidence on record, the lower appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion against the complainant and in favour of the accused. Reasoning of the lower Court in acquitting the accused is neither manifestly unjust nor perverse. Therefore, finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court is not liable to be interfered with in this appeal. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:27.10.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.10 of 2006 Dt:27.10.2011 ysk