The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the judgment of the civil court is binding on criminal court to prove legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The complainant, M/s. Kakinada Chit Funds (P) Ltd, in a calendar case on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First, filed the present Appeal impugning the judgment, wherein the Magistrate found the respondent/accused not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act’) and accordingly acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.
The accused joined as a subscriber in one of the Chits conducted by the complainant for the chit value of Rs. 1 lakh and the accused did not pay instalments after receiving prize money in the auction. After making several demands, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 70,000/- towards part payment of chit due to complainant but it was dishonoured as ‘ Exceeds Arrangement’. The Magistrate found that the accused is not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
N. Siva Reddy, counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant-complainant, contended that the judgment of the learned trial Judge is not sustainable under law and facts and the Magistrate erroneously held that there is no legally enforceable debt and that the evidence on record would prove the alleged offence as such Appeal against the accused may be allowed.
K Kanaka Raju, counsel, representing K. Subrahmanyam, counsel for the 1st respondent/accused contended that the complainant did not file account copy before the trial Court to show the amount due by the accused, on the other hand, the suit filed by the complainant before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, was decided by holding that the amount due was only Rs.25,000/- and, if that be the case, issuance of the cheque in the manner as alleged is highly doubtful.
The Court of Justice AV Ravindra Babu observed that “Needless to point out here that the judgment of the Civil Court is binding on the Criminal Court. The learned Magistrate elaborately discussed all these aspects. So, it is quite clear that the claim of the complainant before a competent Senior Civil Judge claiming huge amount of Rs.75,000/- was disbelieved by holding the amount due was only Rs.25,000/-.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
