THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.585 OF 2015

ORDER:

This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner/complainant under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.02.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.245 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and whereby, the findings of the learned XV Additional Judge-cum-XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dated 31.01.2013 in CC No.1004 of 2012 acquitting the accused/the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act were confirmed.

2. Heard Sri D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/ 1^st respondent and Sri Parampally Shamanthak Hande, learned amicus curie, for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The brief facts that led to filing of the present criminal revision case, succinctly, are as follows:

The revision petitioner was a dealer in electrical and allied products and the respondents were obtaining stocks and in that process they fell due some amounts and in discharge of the same, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued Ex.P1/cheque bearing No.648868 dated 06.08.2011 for an amount of Rs.8,48,611/-. However, on presentation the same was dishonoured with the reason “funds insufficient” on 23.08.2011 vide Ex.P2/cheque return memo. Accordingly, the petitioner got issued Ex.P3/legal notice dated 20.09.2011 calling for payment of amounts covered under Ex.P1 cheque to which, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 got issued Ex.P8/reply dated 20.10.2011 admitting the liability but failed to repay the said amount. Hence, the petitioner initiated criminal proceedings vide CC No.1004 of 2012.

4. During the course of enquiry, the revision petitioner got examined one Mr.NSR Murthy, the Senior Manger of the petitioner company as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused though no oral evidence was adduced, they got marked Exs.D1 to D3.

5. After careful scrutiny and examination of the entire material available on record, the trial Court found the accused/respondent Nos.2 and 3 not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and accordingly, acquitted them vide judgment dated 31.01.2013 in CC No.1004 of 2012 holding that the petitioner failed to establish that the subject cheque was issued in discharge of the legally enforceable debt since the actual due was not disclosed by the petitioner. Further, it is also held that the petitioner failed to present the case within the period of limitation in view of Ex.D3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.245 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who upon re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, confirmed the findings of the trial Court vide judgment dated 19.02.2015 and accordingly, dismissed the said criminal appeal. Hence, the present criminal revision case.

6. The predominant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the Courts below failed to take note of the fact that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 admitted their liability, in spite of which, they acquitted the unofficial respondents on the point of limitation, which does not stand legal scrutiny.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and

3 vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that both the Courts below have meticulously and scrupulously examined the entire material available on record and the law laid down and hence, no interference of this Court is warranted.

8. This Court perused the entire material available on record including the judgments impugned and paid utmost consideration to the rival contentions advanced on either side.

9. As seen from the record, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 admitt