K MAHADEVAN Vs. Y VENKATESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-de facto-complainant challenging the judgment of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, dt. 3/05/1991, passed in C.C. No. 353 of 1990, on his file, acquitting respondent No. 1 herein (accused) of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(2.)The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that the accused gave two cheques dt. 25-6-1989 and 20-7-1989 for Rs. 3,600.00 and Rs. 9,500.00 respectively, drawn on Vysya Bank Limited Visakhapatnam, in favour of the petitioner herein in connection with the credit transactions between them, that the petitioner presented both the cheques in Karnataka Bank on 19-7-1989 and 20-7-1989 respectively and the Manager of Karnataka Bank, in turn, sent the cheques to Vysya Bank Limited for collection, that the Vysya Bank Limited returned those two cheques to the Karnataka Bank on 20-7-1989 and 21-7-1989 respectively with an endorsement "Exceeds arrangements as there is no cash balance in the account of the accused", that the petitioner thereupon gave a statutory notice to the accused, who, having received it on 4-8-1989, did not pay the amounts covered by the two cheques even after lapse of 15 days and that therefore he filed a private complaint in the lower Court for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completing investigation into the case, the police filed the charge sheet. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took the case of file, under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, examined the accused under section 251, Cr.P.C. and thereafter examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11. Ultimately, after trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed by the de facto complainant (P.W. 1).
(3.)The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. Bali Reddi, is that under section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cognizance should have been taken on the private complaint filed by the petitioner itself but the private complaint filed by the petitioner should not have been forwarded to the police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation and that the procedure adopted by the trial Court is illegal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.