J DURGESWAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of C.C.Nos.769/92, 778/92, 772/92 and 770/ 92 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. The Magistrate by orders dated 16-08-94 held mat the appellants have successfully brought the guilt of the accused punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in each case. Aggrieved by the orders of conviction the accused carried the matters in appeal. The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad allowed the appeals preferred by the accused and acquitted him of the offence by holding that the complaint filed by the appellants is a vague one and the cheques given by the accused are blank cheques. Further the appellants failed to prove mat these cheques were issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. He also drew adverse inference for presenting the cheques one day in advance man the date on which date the said cheques were said to have been issued and accordingly acquitted the accused. Canvassing the correctness of the said judgment the present appeals are filed by the husband and wife who are complainants in the above C.Cs.

(2.) The case of the appellants is that they have advanced an amount of Rs.2,55,000/ - for business activity in Sushil Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and when they insisted for repayment of the amount the accused came forward with a proposal and executed an agreement transferring equity shares of his company with a face value to the extent of Rs.100/- in each of the case and as and when the amounts are paid by the accused the appellants have to retransfer the shares to him. The appellants agreed for the proposal and evidencing the tenns and conditions of the transfer of shares and repayment of the loan the accused executed agreement transferring the shares in each of the four cases covered by the claim. It is their case that when the post dated cheques Ex.P1 and P2 issued by the accused were presented for encashment through the bankers of the appellants but the cheques were returned with an endorsement "not arranged for" Subsequently the appellants got legal notice Ex.P3 issued in all the four cases. Having received the legal notice the accused did not chose to send any reply. In such circumstances the husband and the wife filed these batch of complaints covering each agreement of transfer of shares. Having received the notice the respondent entered appearance and contended that he has given only blank cheques not intended to discharge any legally enforceable liability. He also raised objection for presentation of the cheques one day in advance on the day which it is drawn. The explanation offered by the accused has not favour and the Magistrate convicted the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as stated supra. But in the appeal the objections raised by the accused were found favour and the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the offence.

(3.) The question that arises for consideration in this Court is whether the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, in the light of the evidence available on record, can be sustained in law ?