Dismissed

G.Venkat Ramulu v. C.Rama Murthy and the State of A.P.

Telangana HC8 Jul 2022CRLA/1021/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by a complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the trial court correctly relied on independent witness testimony establishing that the cheque was collateral security, thus no debt was outstanding.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of 2005 dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed.

G.Venkat Ramulu Vs C.Rama Murthy and the State of A.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOB.THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1021 OF 200s

¶6

Crl.Appeal Under Section 378 (4) of Crl.P.C. against the order dated 1806-2004 in C.C.No. 28 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate ( East & North ), Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

G.Venkat Ramulu, S/o Gandaiah, Advocate R/o H-No.18-1-297/91, Shivajinagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. ... Petitioner / Complainant AND

¶9

C.Rama Murthy S/o Babu Rao, Govt. Servant O/o Director of Accounts (Postal), A.P.Circle, Hyderabad.

¶10

The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPODENTS/ Accused

¶12

Counsel for the Appeltant:SRl. M V RAJA RAAM

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI BRAHMADANDI RAMESH

¶14

Gounsel forthe Respondent No.2 : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TS)

¶15

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶16

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL AppEAL No.1O21 OF 2OOs JUDGMENT:

¶17

The appellant/complainant filed the present appeal questioning the acquittar recorded by the Additionar Judicial First class Magistrate (East & North), R.R.District (for short the Magistrate') vide judgment in C.C.No.2g of 2002 dated 18.06.2004, acquitting the 1"t respondent for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶18

The appellant/complainant filed a private complaint for the offence under Section 13g of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the l"t respondent stating that he had advanced a loan of Rs.SO,OOO/- to meet the family expenses of 1"t respondent. When demanded, the 1"t respondent issued a cheque for Rs.6g,0O0/- which was towards principal and interest and the said amount was towards discharge of the debt, which is outstanding and liable to be paid by the l"t respondent. The appellant/complainalt also liled a pronote in support of the loan being given. The said Ex.p2 when presented for

clearance,^{the same was returned for the reason of 'account} closed'.

¶23

The^{accused in the trial court ha'l taken a stand that} the appellant/complainant^who .was^{an Advocate started} private chits^{and the l"t responclent/accusedrvas member} of the chit.^{Appellanthaving taken the prize amountof the} chit, issued^{pronoteand three blank cheques towards} collateral^{security to complainant/appellant' Misusing the} said cheques,^{false comptaint was filed' '[he accused further} exarnined^{D.W'1 who is an independentwitness to state} that the^{appellant/complainant had obtainedthree cheques} and^{pronote from the accused towards collateral security'}

¶24

The learned^{Magistratevide impugnedjudgment'} the 1"t^{respondent/accused on the following} acquitted grounds;^{i) D'W'1 who is an independent witness was in fact} signatory^{to the pronote EXPI and also for handingover of} blank cheques^{to the appeilant/complainant;ii) D'W'1also} stated that^{the l"t respondent/accused was highest bidder'} for which^{reason' the complainant/appellantobtained blank} pronote^{and three pheques; iii) the said defence of the} accused^{was not seriouslyopposed; iv) D'W'l being an}

¶25

independent vr^itness, his evidence cannot be brushed aside; v) The complainant/appellant failed to discharge his burden that there was any amount was due by the 1"t respondent/ accused.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that initia-l burden which was on P.W. 1 was discharged by producing the cheque and also it is an admitted fact that the 1"t respondent/accused had collected the chit amount. In the said circumstances, the burden shifts on to the 1"t respondent/accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the 1"t respondent/accused tailed to rebut the evidence, for which reason, finding of the trial Court has to be reversed. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in the case of T.Vasanthakumar v. Vijayalumaril and argued that under similar circumstances, the Honble

¶27

Supreme Court had reversed the finding of both the trial Court and High Court and found that once issuance of

¶28

'^{AIR2015 Supreme} Court 2240

¶29

¶30

cheque^{arrcl signaturea-re proved' the burden shifts on to} the accused^{to discharge his liability'}

¶31

It^{is no doubtsettled' law that once issuanceof cheue} is admitted,^{though without filling up the details otherthan} the signature,^{a presumptioncan be drawn that it was} issued^{towards debt or liability'In the present case' D'W'1} who is^{a witness to the pronote was examinedto state that} the said^{cheque in question was and two other cheques} Further^{all the} were^{given towardssecurit5rto P'W'l'} installments^{of the chit were paid' Duringthe course of} cross-exalnination'^{except suggesting that D'W' 1was} deposing^{false to help the l't respondent/accused' no other} evidence^{was placed to discredit the evidence of D'W'1'}

¶32

It^{is not the case of the appellant/complainant that} D.W.1^{was only introduced to speak in favour of the l"t} respondent/accused'^{The signatureof D'W'1 as a witness} on the^{pronoteis also not disputed' The Appellantalso} failed^{to explain as to how he could collect interest and how} \ the interest^{cornponent was arrived at'}

The^{trial Court had the opportunityof observing and} assessing the^{witnesses during the course of trial' The} Iinding^{of the trial Court that the evidenceof D'W' 1 couldbe} believed^{to ascertain that no amount was outstandingwith} P.W.1, cannot^{befound fault with'Furtherthe} appellant/complainant/^{P'W'1 did not dispute regarding the} running^{of chits.As seen from the cross-exarnination'it is} not even^{suggested' toD'W' 1 thatP'W' 1was not} undertaking^{business ofchits and theamount of} Rs.SO,OOO/-^{was given to the appellant/complainantby way} of hand loan.^{In the said circumstances' the judgment} relied upon^{by the learned counselfor the appellant is not} applicable^{to the facts of the present case on hand'}

¶37

For the^{foregoingdiscussion, the findings of the} learned Magistrate^{cannot be interfered with'}

¶38

Accordingly,^{theCriminalAppeal isdismissed'} Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending' shall stand closed'}

¶39

//TRUE coPY// sEcrloh oFFlcER "3"^ll'{I[YSiffR

¶40

,totn" ooo,,,onal^{JudicialFirst Class Magistrate( East & North)'Ranga} ,. 1;i.;":';ll,t"Jr:""""'"'r1iJ,^{,,rn court at Hyderabadror the state or} . l!t!: l8fi,hyS^'^^{RAAMAd-v-o-cateloPUfJ} topucl i. 6,i!;E ii^{s-ni.'gRaHNIADANDIRAMESH Advoc}

¶41

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶42

One^SPareCoPY

br &.

HIGH COURT

DATED:08 10712022

JUDG]VIII,Nl'

CRLA.No.1021 of 2005

---:=:a: - '---
.iri-SI".
l1 [[r 202
t

¶50

DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEN L.

G.Venkat Ramulu v. C.Rama Murthy and the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Venkat Ramulu v. C.Rama Murthy and the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. D.a.Deepa Vs the State of A.P. and 3 Others

G.Jagadishwar , Jagadish, Vs State through Sho.,, of P.S.

Ganta Narender Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P.

M/S. Srikanth Enterprises , Vs J.Subbarao, and Another

Kunamalla Sunil Vs State of Telangana

Mandula Sai Kumar Vs State of Telangana