High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V- VENUGOPAL CRIMI NAL APPEAL NO: 27 OF 2016 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr'P C against the Judgment dated 05.11.2015 in Crl ANo 799 ot 2012 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge' at Hyderabad ' Between: Mohd Aiiaz, S/o. Mohd Mehtab' Occ: Business' R/o H No 16-8-361' Kamatipura' Hyderabad AND ...Appellant century 2i, a res stered r-[i,fr]$iJ,fl,Jiffii,ffi}l;f*il#iiT: 1 t'#+*fu11tfl11i"r'hr ,BHtIiSiLt[?*tZl","#r?',"*|"'"f $i*u1',1'l11Elr'r1']ti'ffi *,,o,', 'elgh. Got"onOa' HYderabad' ,BS":3*:"T,'"?tia.'"1?,p,,Y$'f fl.lT?:55ir[r:fl ft 3i,?,,o',' 4 state of relansana,-1eg:l+:","ru* tl5ifr':%t}3if":urt of Judicature at blgh, Got"onoa, HYderabad' HYderabad' for the sti .Respondents/ComPlainant Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent No' 4 : Sri E' Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: : Sri' O Kailashnath Reddy ..* --_._=_ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No,27 of 2016 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the judgement dated 0S.11.201S in Crl.A No.799 of 2O 12, passed by the II Additiona,t Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short ,the Appellate Court,), wherein and u,hereb], the accused Nos.l to 3 were found not guilty for the offence under Section 13g of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the NI Act,,) by setting aside the hnding of conviction of accused imposed as per judgment dated 19.O7.2012 in CC No.329 of 2Ot1 (old CC No.tB7 of 2010) passed by the First Special Magistrate, Hydearabad.

2. Heard Sri Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.4-State and perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the trial Court had convicted the accused persons, who are the respondents herein for the offence under Section l3g of Negotiable Instruments Act, lggl for dishonour of the cheque bearing I \ 2 No.133434, dated 26'Ol'2OOg for an amount of Rs.15,0o,oo0/-' The learned trial Court upon conducting the trial had come to a conclusion that in view of the evidence and documents' it is clear that Ex'Pl Memorandum of Understanding is the important document and binding on both the pa-rties' As per para 5 of MOU the parties i e'' the lirst party has to pay the last instalment as on 26'09'20O9 as per the cheques issued by the accused' Whereas' Exs'P2' P4 and P6 were dishonoured and returned to the complainant vide cheque return memos Ex'P3' P5 and P7 on23'07'2OO9' Ex.D1 is the true copy of registered sale deed No'3205/2009' dated 21.1 l.2OOg executed by Syed Ali Akbar in favour of Mohd Bin Sayeed in respect of 25 gunts of land' As per 12 shows the last instalment payment schedule, item is on 26.06.2O09 and the said payable bY the accused cheques have been dishonoured beyond the time limit of payment. Accordingly the trial Court convicted the accused persons vide its judgment dated lg 'O7 '2012' wherein accused No.1 {irm was sentenced to pay Rs'8'00'000/- and in default of payment of fine' its partner accused No'2 shall I I i I ia 1:;= ,=v ./,'' 3 undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 1 38 of NI Act. Against the said judgment, appellant-accused Nos.1 to 3 filed a.,t appeal uide Crl.A No.799 of 2Ot2.

4. The appellate Court after careful examination of the record, recorded reasons that the respondents successfully proved the dishonour of the cheques, but failed to prove the liability on the part of the accused/appellants, more particularlv u.hich is a contractual in terms of Ex.D1 and the respondent failed to honour the terms and though the liability appears ostensibry it is coupred with obligations on the part of the respondent. But the respondent without fulfilling obligations on his part claiming cheque amounts which cannot be permitted when the obligations are reciprocai and the criminal liability does not arise till the fulfilment of the obligations by the respondent. Accordingly, I the accused by setting aside the judgment passed iaceuitted by the tria_l Court in CC No.329 of 2Ol1 (old CC No.1B7 of 2010), therefore found the appellant not guilty for the offence I I i : 4 under Section 138 of NI Act' Aggrieved by the same' the present appeal is filed by the complainant' 5 Learned counsel for the aPPellant would submit that the trial Court ought to have considered the ongorng obligations on the part of the respondents alrd appellartt as the last payment due has not been fulfilled by the respondents. The cheque which has been bounced is not disputed, so far as liability of the conditions of MOU/Ex'P1 is concerned, it is the matter of contractual obligations and accordingly, the respondents already got opportunity to approach the appropriate Court in accordance with law and that alone is not sufficient to acquit the re spondent/ aPPellant/ accused persons 3nd hsn6s would appeal bY setting aside the seek to allow this criminal judgment passed by the learned appellate Court'

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor seeks to pass approPriate orders I I 5 7 Notice served on respondent was returned, hence. it is deemed service in terms of Section 27 of General Clauses Act.

8. Having hearcl learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that since the cheque which has been issued in terms of the MOU and non_compliance of the terms of MOU, where the parties are obligated to lulfil their conditions Llpon having signature to the settlement agreement, the appellant cannot look into that aspect separately. Admittedly, arbitration proceedings are pending between the parties and the amount covered in Ex.p2, p4 and P6 is the subject matter of such arbitration proceedings. The trial Cour-t failed to observe that the cheques issued by the accused were not towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, but they vr.ere issued in terms of trx.pl MOU. Accordingly, the learned appellate Court had rightl1, come to the conclusion and this Court does not find any reason to interfere witl-r the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court in Crt.A No.799 of 2012. \ t 6 Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed' 9 Miscellaneous Petitions' pending if any' shall also stand dismissed ' SD/. K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// seKorrrcen To, 1]ThellAdditionalMetropolitanSessionsJudge,atHyderabad.(Withrecords) Z fne f irst Special Magistrate, Hyderaba 3. Two CCs to the Public Prls-ecuio'' St"t" of Telangana' High Court Buildings' O Kailashnath Reddy' Advocate [oPUC] a Li""'CC i" 5. Two CD CoPies at HYderabad (OUT) -Sti. DL/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:22107t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.27 of 2016 t:) Y * 10 srp iszs .d' .,-r. * l/ .!ir1-,., I i DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL