HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Crl. A. No. 1518 of 2005 DATED: 17.12.2009 Between: M/s. Rajani Chit Fund (P) Ltd. .. Appellant/complainant And 1. Md. Ahmed Ali 2. State of A.P. rep. By P.P. .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- The acquittal of the accused in C.C. No.No.126 of 2004 by the judgment dated 13.06.2005 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for PCR Cases, Warangal, led the complainant to file this Criminal Appeal. The complainant alleged that the accused was a prized subscriber in respect of two chits run by it in 1997 and executed promissory notes dated 08.06.1997 and 22.08.1997 respectively and other required documents. The complainant claimed that the accused paid only 39 instalments under the first chit and five instalments under the second chit out of 50 instalments each and failed to pay the balance. Ultimately, the accused was claimed to have settled his chit account and issued a Cheque dated 04.02.2002, for Rs.1,21,500/- which was presented, and was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The statutory notice issued by the complainant was received by the accused, but he did not respond. Hence, the complaint. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the case was taken on file under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”) and the accused was examined under Section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure after furnishing copies of documents to him, and on his appearance, when he denied the offence. During trial, the complainant examined PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P13, 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 and he also examined himself as DW1. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting that the accused denied Ex.P1 - Acknowledgement-cum-undertaking and Ex.P2 - Cheque dated 04.02.2002. The trial Court noted that the accused, later admitted the signature on Ex.P2 – Cheque, but the accused was seen from the documents to have paid instalments under the first chit upto September, 1997 and under the second chit, till January, 1997. As Ex.P1 – acknowledgement-cum-undertaking and Ex.P2 – Cheque were nearly 4 to 4½ years after the said dates, the trial Court opined that there were no legally enforceable debts at the time of Exs.P1 and P2, and therefore, following two precedents of our High Court, the trial Court concluded that the accused cannot be found guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Act. The trial Court also noted that the facts of the case do not attract the provision under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 relating to acknowledgement of time-barred debt, and consequently, the trial Court acquitted the accused though the accused being the prized subscriber in respect of two chits run by the complainant and the dishonour of the cheque, etc. are not disputed. The complainant challenges the said judgment in this appeal contending that when the cheque was issued by the accused towards payment of the amounts due under two chits and when the cheque was issued within three years from the date of termination of the chits, it could not have been considered to be towards a time-barred debt. The subsisting liability under a legally enforceable debt and the admitted signature of the accused on the cheque should have led to his conviction and the complainant, therefore, desired the judgment to be reversed. Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant- complainant, Sri Mirza Imamulla Baig, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-accused and Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, were heard. The point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt? Either Ex.P1 – Acknowledgement-cum-undertaking or Ex.P4 – Legal notice was not referred to in the complaint or in the sworn statement of the complainant while referring to the issuance of Ex.P2 – cheque. Even in the chief-examination affidavit of PW1, there was no reference to Ex.P1 and though PW1 denied the signature on Ex.P1 not belonging to the accused or that Ex.P1 was created by them, he did not even have any iota of knowledge whether Ex.P1 was typed in their company or got typed by the accused. It was not stated by him that he was present when Ex.P1 was executed and none-else were examined on behalf of the company to prove the execution of Ex.P1 by the accused. The accused was specific during the examination, before and after the evidence and also as DW1, that he never issued Ex.P1 – Acknowledgement-cum-undertaking. In his cross-examination by the complainant, while the accused admitted being the prized subscriber for the two chits run by the complainant and having executed other documents, was not confronted with Ex.P1 at all. Though he admitted the signature on Ex.P2 – cheque, there was no proof of the execution of Ex.P1- Acknowledgement-cum-undertaking by the accused. Though the accused did not give any reply to Ex.P4 –Legal Notice, the same has no relevance so far as Ex.P1 is concerned as it was not referred to in Ex.P4 while the documents in respect of the chits filed by the complainant were dated 08.06.1997 and 22.08.1997. Hence, while according to the complainant, the accused paid only 39 installments under the first chit and five installments under the second chit and while the accused stated the first chit to be a daily chit and the second chit to be a monthly chit, by the time of Exs.P1 and P2, there were no legally enforceable debts under the two chits. The trial Court has calculated in detail the period that expired and its conclusion that Exs.P1 and P2 were nearly 4 to 4 ½ years after the respective documents, is not in any way factually incorrect. If so, on the strength of the precedents on which the trial Court relied on, the offence under Section 138 of the Act probably cannot be considered to have been made out even irrespective of the proof of Ex.P1. Under the circumstances, the conclusion of the trial Court that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is not susceptible to any interference and the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th December, 2009 bcj