Criminal appeal filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal was not perverse and there were no compelling reasons to interfere.
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.
Is2es ]
I tt I : i 1 I I |. i : 1 l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 537 0F 2018
criminal Appeal filed under section 378(4) of cr.p.c.. aoainst the Judoment dated 13.12 2o1 7 passed in C.C,No.293 ot zlition C.C.No. r-OSs or 20r6t;; th; file of the Court of the XV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Between:
P.Venkateshwar Rao, S/o Chala pathi Rao,Occ: Business, Rl/o. H_No. 2-2-241N46, Plot No. 46, D.D.Colo ny, Bhgyalaxmi Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500013.
...Appe lla nUCom pla inant
AND
1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad 2 lvladdi Edukondalu, S/o Sayanna, Occ: Business, Ryo. H.No. 2-2-64t7, Amberpet, Hyderabad- 50001 3.
... RespondenUAccused
Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. K Harika representing Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : Ms. S Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Lala Ramu
The Court delivered the following: Judgment
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEE.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEALNo.537OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
This appeal ispreferred bythe appellant,aggrievedby the judgment dated 13.12.2017 in C.C.No.293of 2Ol7(o1d C.C.No.1355 of 2016)on the hle of the learnedXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabadin acquittingrespondent No.2/accusedfor the offence punishableunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(for short,"the NI Act").
appellant/complainantand respondentNo.2/accused are known to each other. Outol such acquaintance,accusedapproached the complainant and requested himfor an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as loan. On such request,the complainantlent the said amount and the accused promises him thathe would repay rhe money within two months andissued a chequefor the said arrrount. It is stated that onpresentation,the said chequewas returned
)
i i I
I i I I
dishonoured for thereason "insufficientfunds'' Then the complainantissued legal notice to the accused'But the accused refused toreceivethe same' Hence, the complainant filed the present complaintagainst the accusedfor the offence punishable under Seetion138 of the NI Act' The trial Court'vide impugned judgment, acquitted respondentNo'2 for the offence under Section 138of NI Act. Aggrievedby the same' the complainant preferred the PresentAPPeal.
3
I Ij
of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court. observed that the complainant failed to prove his version that he lent money to the accused and that he possessed such a, financial capacity to lend such a huge amount. Therefore, the trial Court acquitted' the accused vide impugned judgment.
7 . 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 and judiciously and is therefore, to be characteized as perverse. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon w.hich 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 which runs through the web of administration of justice in 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 the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
.t\
"ar"
4
'It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversit5r in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinar5r 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 I-rndings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the pa,rt of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which 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
I 12ot t;o scc +zo
5
II
record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside thejudgment of acquittal. An orrler of acquittal is to be interfered with only when the,re 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 eviclence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision ol the trial Court depending on the materials placed."
t 1zor r; a scc635
6
\
! I I I J I I i t i 1
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Sd/_ T. SRIN.VAS DEPU REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
ADt(gh
a
\
HIGH COURT
DATED:1410812024
.
il Lu{ l!rl
.j1.'
JUDGMENT
CRLA.No.537 ot 2018
DISMISSING THE CRLA
9\ v ,1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused under Section 138 NI Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinal Das Vs. State of TripuraRelied on¶40
Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripura
Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra PradeshRelied on¶46
Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Venkateshwar Rao
State of Telangana
Maddi Edukondalu
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
