IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.981 OF 2010 Between: R. Eshwar Hiranandani … APPELLANT And State of Andhra Pradesh and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.981 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. The complainant seeks to file this appeal against acquittal. The offence alleged against the second respondent/accused was one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act). Admittedly, the cheques - Exs.P1, P3 and P5 were drawn by the accused as partner of M/s. DM and Sons. The complainant did not implead M/s. DM and Sons as accused in this case. The cheques were issued on the account of M/s. DM and Sons, whereas according to the complainant the accused borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from him. In the alternative, he contends that the said amount was given towards investment. For discharging the said liability, Exs.P1, P3 and P5 - cheques were issued in favour of the complainant. Legally enforceable liability pleaded by the complainant is against the accused in his personal capacity. There is no legally enforceable liability as against drawer of the cheques, namely, M/s. DM and Sons. No doubt, in case M/s. DM and Sons is also impleaded, even then the accused can also be impeaded herein as he happened to be one of the partners of M/s. DM and Sons. Then, insofar as the accused is concerned, the complainant has to make necessary averments in the complaint touching the requirements under Section 141 of the Act. The complaint reads as if the accused in his personal capacity owed amount to the complainant and towards discharge of the said debt the accused gave Exs.P1, P3 and P5 - cheques. Thus, viewed from any angle, the complainant has no legs to stand in this appeal. Frame of the complaint in the lower Court is against law. The lower Court rightly dismissed the complaint and this Court finds no reasons to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. 2. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 03, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.981 OF 2010 August 03, 2010