LAWS(APH)-2006-10-48

B RAM CHANARA REDDY Vs. ABID ALI

Decided On October 24, 2006
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KUMOOIPREFERRED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the complainant is directed against the Judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2000 dated 26.4.2000 wherein the appeal filed by 1st respondent-Accused No.2 was allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool in C.C.No.77 of 1999 dated 30.12.1999 against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Nthe Act').

(2.) The appellant filed a complaint against the 1st respondent-accused No.2 and his father (A.I) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act alleging that he was the owner of the Ambassador Car bearing No.AAQ 1725 and he sold it to A.I for Rs.55,000/- out of which A.I paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- and for the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- A.2 who is no other than the son of A.I issued ,a cheque on the account maintained by him. When the cheque was deposited for collection, it was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds". Later, he met both the accused and informed them about the dishonour of the cheque and, at their request, he presented the same fifteen days later for collection. But, again the cheque was returned again with endorsement "insufficient funds". Thorenftor, ho got ir,uiod n loqnl nofico dated 8.2.1999 calling uponthem to pay the amount, but the accused managed to return the sarne^s unserved, Therefore, he filed the complaint against the accused. In order to prove the complaint allegations, the complainant got himsel examined as P.W.I and another witness P.W.2 was examined as an indpendent witness and nwked Exs.P.l to P.6 as documentary evideno.

(3.) Tie lower Court after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence found A.I not guilty of the offence and acquitted him of the offence, lut A.2 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of tht Act and accordngly he was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 5 period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.l6,(DO/- and in default of such payment to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.