G. SREERAMACHANDRUDU Vs. P.SRINIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant as the appellant, aggrieved by the lower appellate Court's acquittal judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2008 dated 16.12.2008 reversing the trial Court's conviction judgment in C.C. No. 652 of 2004 dated 11.08.2004, preferred the present appeal. It was based on a private complaint for the dishonour of Ex. P.1 cheque bearing No. 975669 dated 27.02.2004 for Rs. 2,00,000/ -, from the cheque presented under Ex. P.2 cheque returned dishonoured memo dated 01.03.2004 and from which within the 30 days as contemplated by Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act (for short, the Act), statutory notice issued covered by Ex. P.3 dated 26.03.2004 and the same was served on the accused covered by Ex. P.4 acknowledgment dated 29.03.2004 and no payment made within the statutory time even received the registered cover covered by Ex. P.5 and also allegedly under certificate of posting covered by Ex. P.6. The defence of the accused was that prior to the alleged notice under Ex. P.3 dated 26.03.2004 for the very alleged dishonour of Ex. P.1 cheque dated 27.02.2004, the complainant addressed Ex. D.1 post card letter dated 13.03.2004. The other defence is disputing the giving of cheque and any liability muchless legally enforceable debt or other liability and non -maintainability of the complaint. In the trial Court, PWs 1 and 2 were examined including P.W.2 the Dy. Manager of the Andhra Bank in proof of the cheque dishonour and intimation under Ex. P.3. On behalf of the accused, he did not come to witness box but for confronted P.W.1 with reference to Exs. D.1 to D.7 which includes Ex. D.1 so -called earlier statutory notice supra. Exs. D.2 to D.7 so -called receipts for payments made to the complainant respectively of Rs. 6,200/ -, Rs. 5,000/ -, Rs. 5,000/ -, Rs. 20,000/ -, Rs. 5,000/ -, Rs. 5,000/ - Rs. 8,000/ - and Rs. 2,000/ -. It is by consideration of this, the trial Court by judgment dated 11.07.2008 referred supra found the accused guilty for the dishonour of the cheque however by deducting the amounts so far paid under Exs. D.1 to D.7 comprises of Rs. 50,000/ - as part payments in fixing liability for the remaining by sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment by giving set off the period undergone. The lower appellate Court from the appeal maintained by the accused reversed the said trial Court's conviction judgment mainly from the observations in particular between paras 13 to 17 that, from Ex. D.1 notice demanding the accused to pay the amount of Ex. P.1 cheque after its dishonour dated 01.03.2004, 13.03.2004 that was the statutory notice as contemplated by Section 138(c) of the Act for non -payment after receiving of the notice within 15 days, from the accrual of cause of action contemplated under Section 142(b) of the Act of one month period and as the complaint not filed within one month is barred by time. It is now impugned in the present appeal, said reversal and acquittal judgment of the lower appellate Court of the conviction judgment of the trial Court, in particular the so -called conclusions of the complaint is barred by time by considering Ex. D.1 letter as a statutory notice contemplated by Sections 138(b)(c) of the Act for accrual of cause of action under Section 142(b) of the Act.

(2.) HEARD Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri M. Neelakantam, the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience, as "the complainant" and "the Accused", respectively.

(3.) POINT No. 1: