HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Criminal Appeal No.682 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The complainant in C.C.No.2183 of 2001 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, preferred this appeal as the accused in the said case was acquitted by the said court by its judgment dated 15.7.2003 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the grounds as stated in the grounds of appeal. Apart from that, he raised other grounds that the accused was working as Manager-cum-Sales Representative in the complainant shop; that he resigned in October, 2001 and when the accounts were settled, an amount of Rs.46,610/- was found due to be payable to the complainant by the accused and that on 6.10.2001 the accused issued a cheque for Rs.46,610/- in favour of the complainant and the same was dishonoured for insufficient funds. After issuing statutory notice, a private complaint was filed before the trial court. 2. In support of his case, PW.1-complainant himself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 on his behalf, whereas the accused got himself examined as DW.1 besides examining one of his co-employee as DW.2 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4 on his behalf. 3. Taking into consideration the evidence and other material on record and also the defence put forth by the accused that the complainant being his employer and for the reasons best known to him got two bank accounts opened in his name and used to keep the cheque books with him signed by the accused and that he was removed from service for the reasons best known to the complainant and that after he left the service of the complainant, the complainant conveniently filled Ex.P.1-cheque containing his signature and thereby played a foul and foisted a false case against him, dismissed the complaint. The trial court observed that the respondent- accused being an employee of the complainant on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-, was not able to transact with several persons and with several firms and making such transactions with heavy amounts. 4. It is case of the appellant-complainant that when the accused had resigned his job, accounts were settled whereby the accused was found in dues of Rs.46,610/- to the complainant and that it was towards discharge of the said liability the accused had issued Ex.P.1-cheque. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of the of the respondent-accused that there was no legally enforceable debt due from him to the appellant-complainant and that no supporting document was filed by the appellant-complainant to prove the amount covered under Ex.P.1-cheque was legally due to him. The appellant-complainant got opened bank accounts in the name of the accused for the sake of carrying on benami business transactions and that the business transactions appearing from Ex.D.3 benami transactions involving cheques being issued for huge amounts in favour of various persons and firms and those cheques used to be deposited in the account of the respondent-accused. However, the signed cheque books used to be in the possession of the appellant-complainant. It is his case that Ex.P.4 is doctored by the appellant- complainant, which does not contain the signature of the respondent-accused nor it contains any other details. Therefore, Ex.P.4 cannot be relied on and it was rightly rejected by the trial court. It is his further case that DW.2- co- employee also supported his case by stating in clear terms in her evidence that the accused-respondent never owed Rs.46,610/- or any other amount to the appellant-complainant and that it was the appellant-complainant who had pressed Ex.P.1-cheque into service as foul play with ulterior motive to have wrongful gain. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the trial court was right in observing that the appellant-complainant could not prove his case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as such the complaint of the appellant-complainant was rightly dismissed. It is further stated that the appellant-complainant had also filed a suit for the same amount and the same was dismissed by the competent court. 6. Having regard to the evidence on record and submissions made on either side, it is to be seen that the respondent-accused was employee of the complainant on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-. Ex.D3- account standing in the name of the accused indicates several transactions running into thousand of rupees and they are business transactions wherein cheques were issued to different firms and persons and also the cheques were received from different firms and persons. The complainant operated two accounts in two different banks in the name of the respondent-accused by obtaining his signature and keeping the cheques with him. So far as Ex.P.4 is concerned, certain amounts were noted down in it, but it does not reveal that the respondent-accused is liable to pay those amounts. The respondent- accused denied not only the contents of Ex.P.4, but also the signature made by him on it. So far as Ex.P.1- cheque is concerned, though, the respondent-accused admitted his signature on it, denied the other contents written on it. The appellant-complainant did not file any cogent evidence in support of his case. On the other hand, the defence put forth by DW.1-respondent-accused is corroborated by the evidence of DW.2 who was co-employee working along with DW.1. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent-accused issued Ex.P.1-cheque to the complainant to discharge the legally enforceable debt. As such, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court and the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-04-2011 Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Criminal Appeal No.682 of 2004 11-04-2011