Dismissed

M.Satyanarayana v. v.Shiva Rama Raju

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLRC/2169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court criminal revision court dismissed a petition challenging acquittal in a cheque bouncing case. The court held no substantial or compelling reasons existed to disturb the trial and Sessions Courts findings, citing the complainant's failure to substantiate source of loan amounts.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed with Miscellaneous Applications closed.

M.Satyanarayana Vs v.Shiva Rama Raju — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2l 69^{0F 2018}

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 &^{401 of Cr.P.C against the} Judgment daled 1611012017 made in Crl.A.No.66^{of 2016 on the file of the Court of} the lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge^{-4um-JHCBBC Court-cum-Additional} Family Court, Nampally, Hyderabad^{prefened againstthe Orderpassedin CC} No.4/2015 daled 1411212O15 on the file of the^{Court of the lll Special Magistrate} Court, at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.satyanarayana, S/o.Appa Rao, R/o. H.No 6-3-347/1714,^{Dwarakapuri Colony'} Panjagutta' Hyderabad'Telangana-500082

¶10

...pETrroNER/coMpLAlNANT

¶11

AND

¶12

V.Shiva Rama Raju, S/o.Raju Venkata Vegi Raju, Occ:^{Business, R/o H.No} 6-3-596/47, Triling-a Avenue, Flat No. 201, Venkatarama^{Colony, Hyderabad,} Telangdna 500004.

¶13

rhe State of reransana, rep by its PP, Hish

¶14

""rLflLB[8ifiBEflr,^o""rr=o

¶15

For the Petitioner : SRI K.HANMANDLU, Advocate

¶16

For the Respondent No.2 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

For the Respondent No.l : SRI S.R.SANJEEV^{KUMAR, Advocate}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE^K.SURENDI'R CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE^{No.2169OF 2018}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The complainant/revision^{petitioner is aggrieve'l by the} concurrent findings of acquittal^{for the offence under Section} 138 of the Negotiable Instruments^{Act, 1881 (for short 'the} Act).

¶23

Briefly, the case of the complainant^{is that loan of} Rs.8,O0,O0O/- was^given to^{theaccused out ofhis} acquaintance. Both, the^{accusedand the complain:rnt were} in catering business.^{Towardsrepayment of saic[ loan a} cheque for Rs.8,00,OOO/-^{under EX.P -2 was givetr to the} complainant. The^{said cheque when presented for clearance} was returned unpaid.^{Legal notice} lEx.P.4.^{wati issued} intimating the accused about^{the return of the cheque.} However, no amounts^{were paid by the accusedf,rr which} reason, a criminal complaint^{was filed.}

¶24

The tria-l Court examined the complainant^{as P.W. 1 and} also another witness as P.W.2, who^{was allegedlythe} signatory to the^promissory note. ln all, the^conrplainant

¶25

¶26

¶27

marked Exs.Pl to P.7 and one Ex.X. I^photocopy of^the Aadhar card of P.W.2 was also brought on^record.

¶28

trarned Magistrate having considered the^{evidence on} record found that the complainant has^failed to^{make out a} case that there was legally enforceable^{debt on the chequein} question. The reason given by t.Ile learned Magistrate^was that though there was a loan of^{Rs.4,75,OOO/-,suppressing} the same, the complainant alleged^{that Rs.8,OO,OO0/- was} given, which version cannot be believed.

¶29

The learned Magistrate for.md that^{the reason given by} the complainant regarding^{lending of Rs.8,OO,OOO/-was that} he has taken loan from^{three other persons.However,no} such person was examined^before the^{Court. P.W.2 is a} friend of P.W. l. His name was not reflected^inthe promissory note and was later introduced^tohelpthe complainant.

¶30

It was further found by the learned^{Magistrate that} though the complainant^{claimedthat he wasearrring ar:ound} Rs. 1 ,6O,O00/ -, no income^{tax returns were filed nor any} bank statements were^{brought on recordto substantiatethe}

I ! I i i ; l ii T

source of funds. Accordingly, the learned Mzrgistrate acquitted the accused.

¶35

7 . The sajd acquittal was questioned before the Siessions Court. Learned Sessions Court upheld the findintl of the learned Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge furthe.r found that the version given by the complainant regarding lending of loan to an extent of Rs.12,75,000/- was without otctaining any s6curity and it appears to be highly improbable.

¶36

l.earned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that both the Courts below have committed i r error in recording the acquittal. Once the issuance of cheque is admitted, on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Siupreme Court reported in ?. Vrrsanthakuma.r as. ViJagkumarlt, presumption arises and since the accused failed to rr:but the presumption, tJle acquittal has to be reversed. He further relied. on another judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in Raghu Lakshminaragana.n us Fine Twbesz, wherein it was held that though a propriet5z concern was not

¶37

'^{zor s (:) ecnzsqz(sc)}

'^{atn zoousc tol+}

I I I i

made a party to the complaint, the complaint can still^be proceeded against the Proprietor of the said firm.

¶44

There is no dispute regarding the above said^judgments or observations made by the Honble^{SupremeCourt. The} initial burden is always on the complainant to^{prove that he} has lent the amount claimed. Once the initial^burdenis discharged, the burden shifts on to^{the accused under} Section 139 of the Act. It is^{for the accusedto discharge his} burden by adducing evidence.^{The burdenisby} preponderance of probabilitY.

¶45

In the present case, both the^{Courtsbelow found that} in the circumstances narrated^{by the complainant keeping in} view the transactions, inter se the^{complainantand the} accused, Iending of such^{hugi: amountis highly improbable} and also in the background of the^{false claimsbeing made by} the comptainant regarding collecting^{money to give itto} accused as [oan.

¶46

t earned counsel appearing for the^{complainant would} submit that in^{the eventof the complainant claiming that he} has taken^{loansfrom three different persons,accusedought}

to have taken steps to examine them. It is for the complainant to summon the witnesses from whom ttLe loans were obtained by the complainant. In fact, burden is on the complainant by producing the said persons from wltom the €rmounts were taken and in turn given to the accused. Failure to produce such evidence before the Court, adverse inference can be drawn against the said version of the complainant.

¶52

In cases of acquittal, the Hontrle Supreme Court in Raul Shartna v. Stdte (Gooernment oJ I{CT of Del,hi) and anothet', held tl.at while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Th.us, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in revers.ing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

¶53

r (2022) 8 Supreme Coun Cases 536

¶54

(

¶55

¶56

ln Ghureg Lal u. State of tlttar^{Prqdesnd the Hon'ble} Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the^powersof appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal,^{held at} paraTO, as follows:

¶57

"70. In the light of tlrc aboue, tle High^Courtand other appellate Courts should foltou the^uell-settled pinciples crystalli.zed by number of Judgments if it^is going to ouenttle or otheru-tise di.sturb the tial court's acquittal:

¶58

Tle appellate court may only ouemtle or^otherui"se disturb tle trial court's ocquittal if it^{l:r:'s "uery substantial} and compelling reason.s" for doing so.

¶59

A number of instances aise in uhich^{the appellate} aurt uould twue "uery substantial ond^compelling reasons" to discard the tial court's decbion.^"Very substantial and compelling reasons" eist^uhen:

¶60

i) Tle tnd court's conclusion uith^{regardto tle} facts is polpablg utrong:

¶61

ii) Tle tnal court's decision^u)cts based^{on an} erroneous uieu-t of low; iii)The trial court's iudgment is^likelg to^{result in} "graue mi,scarriage of^justice"; iu)The entire approach of the trial^{court in dealing} utith tle euidence uas^{patentlgillegal;}

¶62

u) Tle tiat court's^judgment u)as^{manifestlg unjust} and unreasonable;

¶63

ui)The tial court hrrs ignored tle^{euidenceor misread} the moterial euidence or has^{ignored mateial documents} like dging declarations/ report of^{tLrc ballisticexpert, etc.} uii) This list is intended to be^{illustratiue,not} exhaustiue.

¶64

Tlrc appellate court must^{ahaays giue proper} ueight and consideration o^ttrc findings^{of the trial court.} 3. If ttuo reosonable uieuts can^{be reached. one tLnt} lead.s to ocquittal, the other to^conuiction High -tLLe

¶65

t 120081^{lO Srp."."CourtCases450}

l I I1 I ! .:

; I

Courts/appellate courts must nlle in fauour of the accttsed."

¶70

L4. I do not find any infirmity wittr the concurrent :irndings of acquittal. The Criminal Revision Caie fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications

¶71

pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶72

//TRUE COPY//

¶73

¶74

Sd/-M-RAMI.NA KRISHNA DEPUTI' REGISTRAR (=D/a::

¶75

SECT ON OFFICER

¶76

¶77