High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act, holding the trial court's view supported by evidence and no perversity was shown.
Criminal Appeal dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 09.11.2016.
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.
[32es ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No:'160 ot 2018
Appeal under Section 378(4)(i) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 09-1 1-20 16 passed in C.C.No.126 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.
Between:
Mandapalli Pradeep Kumar, S/o Adinarayana, Age.42 years, Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 7-1 -60/4, Opp. Venkateswara Theatre, Khammam
...AppellanUComplainant
AND
...Respondent No.liAccused
...Respondent No.2
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri K. Chaithanya, Amicus Curiae
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. S. Madhavi,
Assistant Public Prosecutor
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
7
g
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 16O OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal IS preferred by the
appellant/complainant against the judgment dated 09. 1 1 .2016 in C.C.No.l26 of 2O1l passed by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam (for short, "the trial Court") whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.l/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the NI Act").
,l
2
t
EVV,J CRLA.No.l60_20 7a
approached the appellant to borrow an amount of Rs.1,25,000/on 26.1O.2OO9 for his family necessities, with a promise to repay the same within ten days. Then, the appellant gave sum of Rs. I,25,OOO/- to the accused, for which the accused executed promissory note infavour of the complainant agreeing to repay the sarne with interest @ Rs.2/- per hundred per month. Thereafter, when the complainant demanded the accused to repay the same, the accused issued cheque dated 26.10.2O10 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- bearing No.548720, dated 26.10.2010 of Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Khammam branch. Thereafter, when the complainant presented the said cheque into his bank for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement "Funds insuflicient" and when the complainant informed the same to the accused. Though, the accused promised to repay the said amount, he failed to repay the sarne. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 1 1. 1 1.20 10 to the accused and though the accused received the same, he failed to repay the cheque amount. Therefore, the accused/respondent No.1 alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
3
I I I I
,fJ
EW,J CRLA.No.760 2078
Negotiable Instr-uments Act (flor short, "the NI Act"). Hence, the complaint.
4, After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court uide impugned judgment dated 09.11.2016 in C.C.No.126 of 2Ol1 found respondent No.1/accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act accordingly and acquitted him of the said olfence.
4
EW,J CRL/l.No.760 207a
contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment by acquitting the accused and hence, seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
r{
5
EW,J CRLA.No.16O 2ola
scribe of Ex.P6 promissory note, for the reasons better known to him. The appellant also failed to examine the person who signed as witness on Ex.P6 promissory note in order to prove that there was legally enforceable debt rests upon the accused.
lO. It is well settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably andjudiciously and is, therefore, to be characterized as perverse. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread, 1n which runs through the web of administration ofjustice criminal cases, is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and
6
EW,J CRLA.No.760 20la
the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted.
"lt is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which
'(zot t) 9 scc atg
1
EW,J
I a
I I
CRLA-No.760 2078
the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside thejudgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ba-llistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed."
L2. In Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhrd Pradesh2
the Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal calnot be upset The appellate Court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal arrd unless the acquittal is
'?lzorr; s scc ols
'4.,i.a
EW,J CRLA.No- 760-20 1A
found to be perverse or not at all supportable and r.r..here the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquitta_I, has ta_ken such care.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
Sd/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
CTION OFFICER
kanr/l)1.
f:.
HIGH COURT
DATED:0810812024
ORDER
CRLA.No.160 of 2018
rHE sr/j/ti
l. i ,
:i- 03 APB n6
;)
t;-:;;-/
DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL
1
I
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deserves interference on appeal.
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the criminal appeal and confirming the trial court's acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.P.No.16742 of 2077Referred¶40
Mrinal Das Vs, State of TripuraReferred¶57
Mrinal Das Vs, State of Tripurat
Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶66
Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhrd Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mandapalli Pradeep Kumar
B.Biram
State of Telangana
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
