Cheque bounce - Sec.138 & 139 - in the absence of conveyance in respect of oral sale of property - it can not be presumed that the cheque was issued towards consideration for purchase of a property -Accused is entitled for acquittal
Apex court held that
In our view, the offence alleged was that a cheque was given towards consideration for purchase of a property. Neither any document was produced on record nor there was any evidence that any conveyance was executed in favour of the appellant. Thus, the
submission of the appellant that there was no existing debt or liability against which the cheque was given had to be accepted.
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1509 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.9099 of 2016)
B. KRISHNA REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
SYED HAFEEZ (DIED)
PER LR. SMT. NASEEMA BEGUM & ANR. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal questions the final judgment dated 06.06.2014
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States
of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1086/2008.
On a charge that a cheque in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- issued
by the present appellant had bounced upon being presented for
encashment, the appellant was arrayed as accused in Complaint Case
No.373 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chevella, R.R. District.
2
The allegations in the complaint were that there was an oral
sale of a property and towards consideration for said purchase, the
appellant had given the cheque for Rs.4,00,000/-. However, the
evidence on record discloses that no conveyance was executed in
favour of the appellant and, as such, the very basic ingredient was
not proved. In the circumstances, the Trial Court found that no
case was established as against the appellant and therefore the
Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 06.06.2008 acquitted
the appellant of the charge levelled against him.
The matter was carried in appeal by the original complainant
by filing Criminal Appeal No.1086 of 2008 in the High Court. The
view taken by the Trial Court was upset by the High Court; the
appeal was allowed; the appellant was found guilty of the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and was
also directed to pay a fine of Rs.4,25,000/-, out of which an
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid to the complainant towards
compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid
towards fine to the State.
While issuing notice on 18.11.2008, this Court stayed the
operation of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
Though notice was served upon the original complainant,
according to the office report, the complainant has not chosen to
appear through any Counsel.
3
We heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
State.
In our view, the offence alleged was that a cheque was given
towards consideration for purchase of a property. Neither any
document was produced on record nor there was any evidence that any
conveyance was executed in favour of the appellant. Thus, the
submission of the appellant that there was no existing debt or
liability against which the cheque was given had to be accepted. In
our view, the High Court was in error in accepting the appeal and
upsetting the view taken by the Trial Court.
We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the decision of
the High Court and restore the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court.
The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
.................................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
.................................J.
[ ANIRUDDHA BOSE ]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 30, 2019
4
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.6 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9099/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-06-2014
in CRLAP No.1086/2008 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra
Pradesh)
B. KRISHNA REDDY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SYED HAFEEZ (DIED)
THROUGH LR. SMT. NASEEMA BEGUM & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 19446/2016 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Date : 30-09-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the File)
Apex court held that
In our view, the offence alleged was that a cheque was given towards consideration for purchase of a property. Neither any document was produced on record nor there was any evidence that any conveyance was executed in favour of the appellant. Thus, the
submission of the appellant that there was no existing debt or liability against which the cheque was given had to be accepted.
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1509 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.9099 of 2016)
B. KRISHNA REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
SYED HAFEEZ (DIED)
PER LR. SMT. NASEEMA BEGUM & ANR. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal questions the final judgment dated 06.06.2014
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States
of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1086/2008.
On a charge that a cheque in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- issued
by the present appellant had bounced upon being presented for
encashment, the appellant was arrayed as accused in Complaint Case
No.373 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chevella, R.R. District.
2
The allegations in the complaint were that there was an oral
sale of a property and towards consideration for said purchase, the
appellant had given the cheque for Rs.4,00,000/-. However, the
evidence on record discloses that no conveyance was executed in
favour of the appellant and, as such, the very basic ingredient was
not proved. In the circumstances, the Trial Court found that no
case was established as against the appellant and therefore the
Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 06.06.2008 acquitted
the appellant of the charge levelled against him.
The matter was carried in appeal by the original complainant
by filing Criminal Appeal No.1086 of 2008 in the High Court. The
view taken by the Trial Court was upset by the High Court; the
appeal was allowed; the appellant was found guilty of the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and was
also directed to pay a fine of Rs.4,25,000/-, out of which an
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid to the complainant towards
compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid
towards fine to the State.
While issuing notice on 18.11.2008, this Court stayed the
operation of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
Though notice was served upon the original complainant,
according to the office report, the complainant has not chosen to
appear through any Counsel.
3
We heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
State.
In our view, the offence alleged was that a cheque was given
towards consideration for purchase of a property. Neither any
document was produced on record nor there was any evidence that any
conveyance was executed in favour of the appellant. Thus, the
submission of the appellant that there was no existing debt or
liability against which the cheque was given had to be accepted. In
our view, the High Court was in error in accepting the appeal and
upsetting the view taken by the Trial Court.
We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the decision of
the High Court and restore the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court.
The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
.................................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
.................................J.
[ ANIRUDDHA BOSE ]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 30, 2019
4
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.6 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9099/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-06-2014
in CRLAP No.1086/2008 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra
Pradesh)
B. KRISHNA REDDY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SYED HAFEEZ (DIED)
THROUGH LR. SMT. NASEEMA BEGUM & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 19446/2016 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Date : 30-09-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the File)
