The High Court · 2025

...RespondenURespondenUComplainant 2. State of Telangana, rep. by its P.P. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondenURespondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A. Tulsi Raj Gokul Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Rajagopallavan Tayi Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CR IMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.388 and 390 of 2O2O COMMON ORDER: Crl.R.C.No.388 ot 2020 Challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.912 of 2017 by the learned Additional tVletropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXlll Additional Chief Judge-cum-lX Additional [Vetropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short 'learned Sessions Judge'), this Criminal Revision Case is it"o. ey the impugned order, the judgment dated 31 .O7.2A17 passed in C.C No.272 of 2016 (old C.C.No.'l 079 of 2016) by the learned XXI Special tvlagistrate, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court'), was confirmed, wherein, the petitioner-appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 1,01,50,000/- (One Crore One Lakh Fifty Thousand only), in default to undergo imprisonment for four months. Crl .R.C.No.390 of 2020 Challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.913 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, this Criminal Revision Case is filed By the impugned order, the I '\..1 ) judgment dated 3'l .07.2017 passed in C.C.No.274 of 2016 (old C.C.No. t069 ot 2016) by the trial Court was confirmed, wherein, the petitioner-appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 42,80,000/- (Fourty Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand only), default to undergo imprisonment for three months

2. Since the parties and issue involved in both these criminal revision cases is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by wa! of this common order

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the accused and complainant are well acquainted with each other since long time Out of said acquaintance, the accused requested the complainant to arrange amounts of Rs.30,00,000i- and Rs.70,00,000/- to meet his business necessities in the year 2013. ln view of close acquaintance, the complainant has transferred amounts of Rs 30,00,0001- and Rs.70,00,000/- through RIGS into the account of wife of accused on 11.12.2013. The accused promised to pay the principal amounts along with interest of 1B% per annum within six months, however, he failed to repay the same J On repeated demands made by the complainant, accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.4'1 8295 and 418300, dated 28.03.2016 for Rs.1,01,00,000/- and Rs.42,50,000/- respectively in the name of Adda Bar and Restaurant. When the said cheques were presented for clearance by the complainant' the same were returned with an endorsement 'Account closed'- Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notices, dated 18.04.2016 and the same were received by the accused on 21 .04 2016 However, the accused neither replied nor repard the cheque amount within the stipulated time. Therefore, complaints under Section 138 of the Act were filed by the complainant against the accused.

5. During the course of trial, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and Exs.P'l to P6 were marked on his behalf' On behalf of accused, Bank Manager was examined as DWl ; Exs.D1 and D2 were marked in C.C No.274 of 2016 and no documents were marked in C C.No.272 ot Zirc

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Cou( found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Act in both the complaints and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and six months respectively and also directed to pay the cheque amounts towards compensation, in default to undergo imprisonment for four and three months respectively. Aggrieved by the said 4 conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against him, the accused preferred Criminal Appeals. On perusing the material available on record and hearing, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeals confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court Aggrieved further the accused preferred the present Criminal Revision Cases before this Court

7. Heard [vlr. A.Tulsi Raj Gokul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and [\/r. Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-complainant.

8. Submissions of learned counsel for the accused:

8.'1 . The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not considered the evidence in a proper perspective and recorded conviction mechanically without applying judicious mind. The subject transactions are not loan transactions and the complainant invested the said amounts in Vandana Conceptual Ventures Private Limited. To get the said money back, somehow the complainant got the possession of cheque leafs pertaining to Adda Bar and Restaurant through other means/common friends, manipulated them with his own handwriting and filed these complaints suppressing the real facts. ln fact, the complainant is the Director of Vandana Conceptual Ventures Private Limited. Even though there is no legally enforceable debt, the trial Court -) as well as appellate Court had erroneously held that the accused is liable to pay the cheque amount

8.2. The accused is being prosecuted in his individual capacity and he was not even described as the owner or authorized signatory of the Adda Bar and Restaurant. The cheques in question were issued by the accused as an authorized signatory of Adda Bar and Restaurant and not by the accused in his individual capacity, however, without impleading the said establishment as pafi to the complaints, connecting the accused to the said establishmeni, the present complaints were filed The evidence adduced And admissions made by the complainant during the course of his cross examination were self- contradictory. The complaint suffers from fatal defects i'e, Vandana Conceptual Venture Private Limited was not impleaded as a party, no notice was issued to the drawer of the cheque i.e , Adda Bar and Restaurant. There is no material to show that there is nexus between the accused, Adda Bar and Restaurant and Vandana Conceptual Venture Private Limited

8.3. ln order to constitute an offence under Section 't 38 of the Act, the cheque must be drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of money to another person to discharge a debt or liability and if the bank returns the cheque due toJri5ufficient funds or it exceeds the agreed limit, 6 then that person is said to have committed an offence. ln the ...1 instant case, the dishonoured cheques were issued by 'Adda Bar and Restaurant', which is the account holder. However, the said establishment was not impleaded as party to the proceedings. ln the absence of drawer being made as a party to the proceedings, the prosecution of the accused is not legally sustainable. Furthermore, the accused has been prosecuted solely in his individual capacity and has not even been described or identified as the authorized signatory of the said establishment

8.4. ln support of his' contentions, learned counsel for the accused relied on 'the judgment of N.Harihara Krishnan v. J.Thomasl , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (p) Limited2.ln the said judgment, it is held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Act cannot be maintained against the Directors of the Company or authorized signatory of the cheque, without making the Company as an accused. lmpleading the Company as one of the accused is a mandatory requirement.

8.5. He further relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himanshu v. B.Shivamufthy and anothef and Dilip ' 1zo tsy r: scc oo: ' 1zo rz1 s scc eo r ' 1zo r9y; scc rsz 7 Hariramani v. Bank of Barodaa, wherein, it is held that without the Company being arraigned as an accused, and with the demand notice solely served to the authorized signatory of the firm, but not to the Company, the complaint against the appellant, who is the authorized signatory of the Company, was not maintaina ble

8.6. He further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble SuPreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna and anothef and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph No.43, wherein, it is held as follows

43. This Courl n one of its recent declslons n the case ol Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Prithvirai Sayaiirao Deshmukh repofted in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1800 had the occasion to consider the lssue of whether lhe authorised signatory of a company who had signed a cheque drawn on the bank account of the company and which got dishonoured subsequently could be held to be liable for the payment of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Nl Act. This Court while answering the issue in the negative, applied the doctrine of separate corporate personality and held that it is only the drawer of the cheque who could be held to be liable for the payment of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Nl Act and the authorised signatory of a company cannot be said to be the drawer of the cheque. . ..

8.7. Hence, he prayed to allow the revisions by setting aside the judgments of convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court as well as appellate Court. 4 2022 SCC OnLinc SC 579 '202a scc onLine SC iE33 8

9. Submissions of learned counse I for the complainant:

9.1. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the cheques pertain to Adda Bar and Restaurant. Ex.p6, which is a document pertaining to Customers Accounts lnquiry reveals that the Adda Bar and Restaurant belongs to accused. The amount advanced by the complainant to the accused is hand loan, but not as an investmgnt in Vandana Conceptual Ventures Private Limited as contended by the learned counsel for the accused. To prove the said investment, the accused has not produced any Arlemorandum of Understanding.

9.2. The purported signatures of the accused on the cheques are identical with his signatures affixed by him on the examinations recorded by the trial Court under Sections 251 and 313 Cr.P.C Though the bank account operating in the name of Adda Bar and Restaurant was closed on 23.O2.2010 and knowing that the account was closed, the accused who is the aulhorized signatory of Adda Bar and Restaurant has issued cheques to the complainant. The complainant has got issued legal notices to the accused on 18.04.2016 and the same were received by the accused on 21 .04.2016. However, for the reasons best known to him, the accused did not choose to give reply to the said legal notices denying the loan transactions between them and did not come forward vs(tn nis defence at the first time by way of reply. 9

9.3. The accused has not denied his signature on the cheques and it is not his case that his signatures on the cheques were forged by the complainant. Though the accused contended that the cheques were secured by the complainant through his common friends to get back his amounts, the accused has not mentioned as to how and through which common friends the complainant secured the cheques

9.4. The Adda Bar and Restaurant is a proprietary concern. lt is well settled that the concept of vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act is applicable in'cases of a Company as defined in that Section and is not applicable to a proprietary concern. lt is not the defence of the accused that the Adda Bar and Restaurant is a Company or Corporation or Partnership Firm with other authorized signatories. Hence, the question of impleading the Adda Bar and Restaurant does not arise. As the accused failed to establish that the Adda Bar and Restaurant is a Company or Corporation or Partnership Firm, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present facts of the case.

9.5. During the course of cross examination, the accused admitted that by 11.12.2013, he was not doing business in the name and style of Adda Bar and Restaurant and it was entrusted to sori-ettner persons. To prove the same, he has not filed any l0 \ -- I documents. However, it is not his case that the ownership of - Adda Bar and Restaurant was transferred to some other person and as on the date of issuance of cheques, he was not the owner of said Restaurant.

9.6. ln support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghu Lakshminarayan v. M/s. Fine Tubes6, wherein, it is held that the proprietary concern is not a Company within meaning of Section 141 of the Act and the proprietor thereof would be solely responsible for conduct of its affairs.

9.7. He also relied on the judgment of High Court of Delhi in M.M.Lat y. State NCT Delhi and othersT, wherein, it is held that obviously Section 141 of the Act is with reference to a Company or a firm but not to a sole proprietorship concern. It may be said that the proprietor and proprietary concern are not required to be separately arrayed as a party/accused. ln other words, in a proceeding under Section '1 38 of the Act, if the proprietor is an accused or a proprietary concern represented by the proprietor is arrayed as an accused would be sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 138 of the Act. u ntn 2oot sc t ot.r ' vANUlon/+88 vu o tz f /

9.8. He further relied on the judgment of High Court of Allahabad in Dhirendra Singh v. Sfate of Uttar Pradesh and otherss, wherein, it is held that in case of a proprietary concern, no vicarious liability may ever arise and therefore, the principle contemplated in Section 141 of the Act is not attracted, and hence, a complaint cannot be held as. not maintainable or defective on the ground that the proprietary firm has not been arrayed as an accused.

9.9. Relying on the above .ludgments, learned counsel submits that impleading the Adda Bar and Restaurant, as a party to the complaints, is not necessary. He further submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgments convicting the accused and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss these Criminal Revision Cases

10. Perused the record

11. The primary contention of the accused is that he was being prosecuted in his individual capacity, though he was not even described as the owner or authorized signatory of the Adda Bar and Restaurant. The said Restaurant was not impleaded as a party to the complaints. However, it is not the defence of the E izozoy It,n r!t z t: .l t? accused that Adda Bar and Restaurant is a Company or corporation or partnership Firm with other authorized signatories and that the said Restaurant was registered as a Company under the Companies Act On the other hand, it is the contention of the complainant that the said Restaurant is a proprietary concern, but not a Company. As the accused failed to establish that the Adda Bar and Restaurant is a.Company or Corporation or partnership Firm, the question of arraying the Adda Bar and Restaurant as an accused does not arise.

12. lt is an undisputed fact that the accused is an authorized signatory of Adda Bar and Restaurant. The accused never denied his signature and it is not his contention that the signatures on the cheques were forged by the complainant. Furthermore, in support of his contention, the comprainant has fired Ex.p6, which is a document pertaining to Customers Accounts lnquiry and the same reveals that the Adda Restaurant and Bar belongs to accused. lt is another contention of the accused that as on the date of issuance of cheques, he is not the owner of Adda Restaurant and Bar and the same was entrusted to some other persons. However, the accused never denied his ownership over Adda Restaurant and Bar and he has not filed any document to prove that the said Restaurant was entrusted to some other persons. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the l3 accused being an authorized signatory of the Adda Bar and Restaurant has issued the cheques to repay the loan amounts taken from the complainant and he cannot exonerate from the Iiability.

13. The contention of the accused is that the cheques tn question were issued towards investment in Vandana Conceptual Ventures Private Limited. However, this suggestion has been denied by the complainant and no materral was produced by the accused to show that the complainant has invested the said amounts in the Vandana Conieptual Ventures Private Limited. lt is further contention of the accused that to get the said money back, somehow the complainant got the possession of cheque leafs pertaining to Adda Bar and Restaurant through other means/common friends, filled them with his own handwriting and filed these complaints suppressing the real facts. However, the accused has not mentioned the names of common friends from whom and how the complainant has obtained the said cheque leafs. lf the complainant had really secured the said cheques through illegal means, the accused would not have kept quiet without taking any action against him.

14. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has found that the purported signatures of the accused on the cheques are identical with his signatures affixed by him on the examjn ations I 1 .t \ l4 recorded by the trial Court under Sections 251 and 3'l 3 Cr'P C' Though the bank account operating in the name of Adda Restaurant and Bar was closed on23'022O1O and knowing that the account was closed' the accused' who is the authorized signatory of Adda Restaurant and Bar' has issued cheques to the complainant lt shows the deliberate act of the accused to avoid repayment of amounts to the complainant The complainant has got issued legal notices to the accused on 18'04'2016 and the same were received by the accus ed on 21 04 2016 However' the accused failed to give repry to the said regal notices denying the loan transactipns between them and did not come forward with his defence at the earliest point of time by way of reply 15. According to Section 139 of N l Act' the Court shall draw a presumption that when the cheque was issued it is only towards discharge of legally enforceable debt' until contrary is proved ln the instant case on hand' the accused did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N'l Act' the cheques. on the other hand, admitted his signature Therefore, in the absence presumPtion under Section 139 of N.l Act, this Court has no option except to draw a presumption that the cheques were issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt Though PWI was cross examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to of anY evidence to disPel the I - I t l5 discredit his evidence. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly held that the accused failed to raise a probable defence which would create a doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt and has rightly passed the impugned judgments of conviction after considering all the aspects. Hence, there is no infirmity, or irregularity, or illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Cases are devord of merits and are liable to be dismissed. '16. Accordingly, both ' the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed, confirming the judgments, dated 06.07 .2020 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.912 and 913 of 2017 by the learned Additional t\Ietropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum- XXlll Additional Chief Judge-cum-lX Additional lVletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. This Courl, vide its orders, dated

23.07.2020 and 24.07.2020 in LA.Nos.2 of 2020 directed release of the accused on bail on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. ln view of dismissal of the Criminal Revision Cases, the Magistrate concerned shall take immediate steps to apprehend the accused by issuing NBWs to serve the sentence of imprisonment. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this l6 order to the Magistrate concerned forthwtth. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/. N. SRIHARI TY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER .DFPq Ij.E //TRUE COPY// To, 1

2. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Brast case-cum_Additionar ramiry court-cum-xx,r Additionar chief Judge-cum-lX Additional rt'litt"p"rit" 6essions Judge Hyderabad (with records, if anY) ;;iii sp"6llr Masistrate at Hvderabad Two CCs to the Public t'"tit''i"i Hish Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad lOUTl ljl"" ff; il-r. nlrrrti RaiGokulAdvocate [oPUC]- ffi;; iI tuii. nrirgopallavan Tavi' Advocate [oPUC] 4 q A Two CD CoPies kam/PS I M/ ih_ L F HIGH COURT DATED:1 610612025 COMMON ORDER CRLRC.Nos.388 and 390 ot 2020 1HE S tA16 o 1i JUt ?$6 , Y t Saa'16'{, BOTH THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES ARE DISMISSED 1