Jethmal Nimbavat, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVETMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 437 OF 2010 Crl.Appeal Under Section 378 of Crl.P aggrieved by the Judgment dated 30-06-2009 in C.C. No. 2863 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,at Hyderabad Between:

Jethmal Nimbavat, S/o. Late Kanhayalal, Business, R/o. 14-1 '1-1039/3 &4, Veer Bhan Bagh, Shah lnayat Gunj, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by the public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Goverdhan Das Partani, S/o. Bhagwan Das Partani, Business, Rt/o. 1-4996, Bakaram, Hyderabad ...RESPODENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. K. SOMESWARA KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI V. SURENDER RAO The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI ]USTICE K.SURENDER RI P AL .437 0F 2010 ORDER:

The defacto complainant flled the present appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondents for the offence under Section 420, 120-8 of IPC. The police on the basis of the complaint, filed final report for 'lack of evidence'. On protest petition, a complaint was taken on file and the learned Magistrate found the respondent/accused not guilty and acquitted the accused. The present appeal is questioning the said acquittal judgment dared 30.06.2009.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that an agreement of sale was entered into in between the accused and the complainant. However, the accused having received an amount of Rs.1,19,00,000/- failed to return the amounts since there was no clearance under the land Ceiling Act and the income tax Act. Towards payment of outstanding amounts cheques were issued which were returned unpaid. Learned Magistrate found that no offences under Section 420 IPC is made out since they are commercial transactions and there was no intention from the inception to cheat the complainant. Further Ex.P1 to 7 were created for the purpose of the case. I do not find any legality in the order of the learned Magistrate to interfere with the order of the acquittal.

3.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIqTRAR C'"ft-t-- ,TRUE COPY/i SECTION OFFICER To

1. The lAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ,Hyderabad.

2. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) One CC to SRl. K. SOMESWARA KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. V. SURENDER RAO, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 3.

4.

5.

Kul pr (

HIGH COURT DATED:17,t1112022 1t\E STAI6 ^lk e i,J io \!),( 5.

. /r, I B ttB ?sn ?

JUDGMENT

.:} ).

ot a.,t ;.:, Crl.Appeal No.437 of 2010 // n\ DIS\{ISSING THE CRL.APPEAL 0^ Flt('r