R.VENKATESH Vs. K.CHANDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the appellants/complainants questioning the acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment in CC No.676 of 2003 dtd. 5/12/2007 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) There are two complainants in the present case, who were tenants in the premises of the accused. The accused in the year 2000 wanted to construct a new commercial complex and requested the appellants to surrender their tenancy rights and offered Rs.25,00,000.00 as compensation for surrendering the tenancy rights and for loss of business. For the said reason, post dated cheque for Rs.25,00,000.00was given in the name of the appellants and also executed Ex.P1 Memorandum of Understanding. EXP2 is a further agreement amongst the appellants and the accused respectively. Ex.P1 was entered into when cheque bearing No.557290 was issued for Rs.25.00 lakhs. Subsequently, Ex.P3 cheque was given by cancelling Ex.P1 cheque. Ex.P3 cheque was presented thrice and it was returned under Exs.P5 and P6. Accordingly, final notice was issued on 27/5/2003. Since the payment was not made, complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed before the trial Court.

(3.) The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and marking Exs.P1 to P13 on behalf of the complainants and also examining the respondent/accused as D.W.1, acquitted the accused finding that no offence was made out under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The reasons stated are; i) the contract in between the complainants and the accused is invalid contract and hit by Sec. 23 of the Contract Act, 1872; ii) Under Sec. 12 of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana State Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, any grievance between the tenant and the owner, the proper forum would be the Rent Control Court.