Criminal Appeal against acquittal in a cheque fraud case dismissed. High Court held that appellate courts should overturn acquittals only with substantial and compelling reasons, as none were present given the witness hostility and lack of proper proof.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1146 OF 2016
' Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 09-05-2016 made in C.C.No.125 of 2010 on lhe file of the court of the Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Between:
Andhra Bank, Now Union Bank of lndia, Abids Road Branch, Hyderabad, rep by its Chief Manager, Sri Rohit Singh. (W.E.F. 01-04-2020)
...APELLANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
AND
...RESPONDENT
(As per Court O'dt-'r laterl 05.07.2023 in 1.A.No.1 of 2023 in Cr l ,r'. No.1'146 of 2006 the name ofat-,pellart is hmendcd in the causetitle)
...RESP3DE NTI:;/A(]CUSED'1 TO 8
lA NO:1 OF20:23
Petition,rrrrJr Section 482 of CPCpraying that ir the circumstances statedin the affice rit filed in supportof the petition, thr: l-r ig;h Court may be pleased to anre:nc1o cause title of the Crimrnal Appeal Nr.1'46 of 2016 by adding thew,r-ds ntw w.ef . 01 .04.2O2OUnton Eank of lncia,Abid Road Branch.Repres:rrle1 by its BranchIVlanager,Sri. RohitSrng t'
Counsel fortheApJellant: SRI M. SRIKANTH REDDY
Counselfor the Res rc,ndent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counselfor the Res rc ndentNo.3: M/s. R. GOPI MOH/\N
Counselfor the Res )ondentNo.4: M/s. P. PRASAD
Counsel forthe Res >ondentNos. 7 & 9: M/s.K. L. B. liuMAll
Counsel forthe Res rondent No.8: Mis. G V L MURTHY
The Court madethe 'ollowing:ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1146 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
l. The appellant is the Chief Manager of Union Bank of India, u.ho tiled the present appeal aggrieved by the order of acquittal in C.C.No. 125 of 2010, dated 09.05.2016 passed by XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
-1
)
accoLrn in r.i CI B:r.k and amounls were. *itlrl-ar,r-r. (). iLrrther ir-rr''e sLiglrti:r'hc si:id arlounrs w'erc seizerl frorr rl-rt possession of Lhesrr i.ccLr:,( , u,hich u.erc marked as N{[)l;. ro 9 totalling Rs.3 ti6(t6.1 ,-'.. /
)
J
to do w,ith the said amount and nothing wasseized fromthemFor tire said reasons, the frnding of the learned Magistrate has to be upheld
7 . From lhe record, the prosecution has failed to examineany of the $,itnesses from ICICI Bank to prove that theaccount in ICICI Bank was maintained or opened by A1. All the documents pertaining to the Bank including the account opening form Ex.P37 n'ere marked through the Investigating Of{icer. Mere marking of the said documents cannot be made basis to rely upon thecontentsof the documents, when the said documents are disputed bythe accu sed
"54.The case property i.e., MO1 to MOg are already handed overto the Andhra Bank Authorities for interim custody and it holdsgood."
\
propcrr', lr1( ; 1 ro 9 * rrich is arrcad' in possesl; , rn rf Urrion BaDk of Indizr b.. :;r of inri,nrn cLrsLocly is madr: zr.l_,solutc ancl tlte said case l)r(,I)e |L is itt thr. clrsposal Andhra Bar: k.
1.0. In Rav Sharma v. State (Government o,i NtlT of Delhi) and anotherr. -ir. iJo,'blc Supr.me Court held tha, rr.hiL: cleali,g .ith an appt:al iri it l1:jL ac:1iritta1, the appellate coLut has to consider qrhether l.ht' lr ai Cour.t,s vrc\: can be terrned e :; a possiblc one, particuli: r11 'l'rc. e'irlerrcer on record has br:r:rr analysed, Thc rcasolt is, tlt:t ., n ordlt of accluittal adcis up, to tlrc, ,r.".-r,',.,ption ol itttlocence itr a,'orrr o1'lhe :rccusecl. Thus, thc aL,prelliLtc Court has to be rt:1.tii l' slo' rn rc'r crsing thc orrrer or thr: trial court renderingl ar:r1 ir 1al.
11 In Grhrrr ey Lal u. State of Llttar .prordtts,h2 the Hon,ble Supreme (lcrr :rfter rcferrir.rg to several Jutlgmt:trt s r,:garding the settled p.in,.i1 k:s of l:^i. ancl the po\,ers ;f app.llate Court ir_r reversing tirr: c.clcr of acquitLal, held at paral'O, as [:>llou,s:
"70. I 'ltt liqltt of t.he aboue, the Htlth C.o,., rt and other appellate lr.urts sl,ould follout the u,ti, !_set tl=.t., l,inciples cryslctllrz:.'tt b 7 nun tt,r of Judgntents if it is t1oinq tt. o'Lenuie or othenuist, o stttrb th.e t riol courl-'s acqtLiital:
.ITlt,: t1toe ate court maAonly oiemtte or otherut:;e d,sturb lhe tiol _co1,.1's ( .4uittcll 4'it has,,uirysibstantialand coffry. e,,|ingreasons,, ford ob,_c, sr'.
'1202218 Suprern,: Cc0 : C rses s36
' 12008110 Suprt,nre (ol.r,-ases 45t)
&E
5
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court utould hauc "uerA substanttal und compelting reasons" to discard tLLe tiaL court's deciston. 'Very substantial and compelling reasons" eist u-then:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the focts is
palpablg u.trong:
ii)'l'he tial court's decision tuas based on an enoneous uieu.t of laLu;
iii)l'he trial court's lutlgment is likely to resuLt in "grctue rni scarriage of justice " ;
iu)The entire approach of the trial court in dealing utith the euidence was patentlg illegal;
u) The trial court's judgment was mantfestly unjust and unreasonable;
ui)The trial court has ignored the euidence or misread the nateial euidence or has ignored mateial documents like dging cleclaratk;ns/ reporl of the ballistic expert, etc. ui! Ihis list is intended to be illustrotiue, not exhoustiue.
other to conuictton _ the High Courts/ oppellate courts must rule in fouour of the accused."
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the
miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO-JorNr RTRAR I
SECTION OFFICER
To,
plp
HIGH COUR T
DATED:0510''12023
,,t; ' ' \l
t :.a 1t N\t ilil
.tr
ORDER
CRLA.No.1146 of 2016
DISMISSING I HE APPEAL
l
, l
N<br>\a\ C'' -,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can reverse the order of acquittal in a criminal appeal.
Whether the prosecution has successfully disproven the presumption of innocence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rav Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)Explained¶53
Rav Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Ghiray Lal v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶54
Ghiray Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Andhra Bank (Union Bank of India)
State Of Telangana
Gaddeda Veera Venkata Satya Vara Prasad
Ankem Rammohan Rao
Madala Ramesh
Pasha @ Satyanarayana
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
