Mrs.C.Hemalatha Reddy v. Mr.B.V.Prasad,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.08.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.A.Nos.1845 and 1847 of 2003 C.Hemalatha Reddy ... Appellant in both appeals vs B.V.Prasad S/o.B.V.Ramanaiah ... Respondent in both appeals Criminal Appeals filed u/s.378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgments of learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, passed in C.C.Nos.1905 and 1906 of 2002 on 08.09.2003.
For Appellant : Mr.S.J.Mohammed Sathik ***** COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals arise against judgments of learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, passed in C.C.Nos.1905 and 1906 of 2002 on 08.09.2003.
2. Appellant/de facto complainant preferred complaints informing that
respondent borrowed monies from him and issued four cheques dated 06.07.2001 in sums of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.80,000/- and another cheque dated 06.06.2001 in a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Somaji Guda, Hyderabad, towards repayment of balance amounts thereof, which upon presentation were returned unpaid for the reason 'insufficient funds'. Appellant/de facto complainant, following the procedure envisaged u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred complaints and the same were taken on file in C.C.Nos.1905 and 1906 of 2002 on the file of learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
3. Before trial Court, following witnesses and exhibits were examined and marked:
Case No.
De facto complainant Accused Witness Exhibits Witness Exhibits C.C.No.1905 of 2002 Nil C.C.No.1906 of 2002 Nil On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgments dated 08.09.2003, acquitted respondent. Aggrieved, appellant/de facto complainant has preferred these appeals.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent.
5. In acquitting respondent, Court below has found that neither in the pleadings nor in her evidence, appellant/PW-1 has stated that respondent has repaid some amount towards interest. In cross-examination, appellant/PW-1 has admitted that Exs.D1 to D7 were acknowledgments issued by her and her husband towards repayment of amount by respondent. In cross, it was also admitted that respondent repaid some amount by way of Demand Draft. Court below further found that in the pleadings, there was no mention regards date of payment, quantum of amount and percentage of interest thereon. Though the presumption u/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was in favour of complainant, it has also been established through cross-examination that respondent has made payments through Demand Draft and in person. In the circumstances, it was for the complainant to establish how much money he has given and what is the balance to be paid by respondent, which he has failed to do. Court below has taken a possible view of the matter. While so, it is not for this Court to interfere.
These Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
21.08.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm
C.T.SELVAM, J gm To The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
Crl.A.Nos.1845 and 1847 of 2003 21.08.2017