S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment in C. C. No. 858 of 1997 rendered by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad, in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 read with sections 141 and 142 of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short the act ).

( 2 ) THE facts that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows: The accused issued a blank cheque without mentioning the date and the amount to the appellant herein and sent it along with a letter dated 7-8-1997 stating that it could be presented after one month for payment, if he failed and to pay the amount prior to 7-9-1997. He also requested fifteen days time on 22-8-1997. Thereafter, the cheque was presented after filling up the blanks found at the amount portion and the date and it was presented through ICICI Banking Corporation after putting the amount as Rs. 11,19,206. 00 and date as 22-9-1997. As can be seen from ex. P-8, it was dishonoured. Thereupon, ex. P-10 notice was issued on 3-10-1997. The accused received the said notice on 7-10-1997. Ex. P-12 is the postal acknowledgment. The appellant invoked the provisions of Sec. 138 of the Act by presenting the complaint for dishonouring of cheque and it was taken on file. The accused pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, the trial was conducted. The appellant alone was examined as P. W. I and the dishonoured cheque was Ex. P-7. Exhibit p-8 is the cheque return memo dated 25-9-1997. Ex. P-9 is the cheque return intimation dated 26-9-1997. Ex. P-10 is the office copy of the notice. Exhibit P-l is the certificate of incorporation. Ex. P-2 is the certificate extract of the minutes of Board of Directors dated a5-l 1-1997. Exhibits P-3 and P-5 are the delivery challan invoices. Ex. P-4 is the copy of consignment note. The learned metropolitan Magistrate recorded a finding of not guilty and acquitted the accused. Thereupon, the appellant preferred this criminal appeal.

( 3 ) THIS appeal is presented against the acquittal order. This court can interfere only when it is shown that the judgment is perverse and there is no proper appraisal of the evidence, which led to miscarriage of justice. The powers vested in the Appellate court have been adumbrated under section 386 Cr. P. C. It is to be seen whether there is any perversity in the judgment of the lower court.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the blank cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt. It is necessary to have a look at section 138 of the act, which reads as follows:"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. , of funds in the account:- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document