Dismissed

M/S. S.Poli Naidu v. the State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC26 Nov 2024CRLRC/1152/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against the confirmed acquittal of the accused. The original case involved a dishonoured cheque for Rs. 3,00,000 issued for the return of money after a machine purchase. The Court held that the lower courts correctly found no legally enforceable debt against the accused and that the acquittal was not perver

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Criminal Revision Case No. 1152 of 2014 disposed of; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S. S.Poli Naidu Vs the State of Telangana and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGFI COURT FOR THE STA'IE OF'I'ELANGANA AT HYDTiRABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

Criminal Revision Case No.1152 of 2014

¶8

' Criminal revision filed under sections 397 & 401 Cr.p.C. aggrieved by the Judgment^dated 18.03.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.75 of 20"t3 on the file of the principal fussions Judge Medak at Sangareddy.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. s-Poli Naidu, s/o. Gopal Rao, aged about 3g yars, occ: private service, R/o. P.No.1S/C, Road No.10, jayalaxmi-Nagar, phaie-I, Beeramguda, Ameenpur, Patancheru.

¶11

...petitioner/Appellant/Complainant. AND

¶12

The State of Telangarra, rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Judicatur at Hvderabad-

¶13

z. nu,iprt " rndusrries, rep. by its proprietor, u.urn,'i[?oiLti:Y[i'"or?,lf*' aged 60.years, Occ: Businesi, Office of plot No.32, Mayurinagar, R.C. puram, Hyderabad - 32.

¶14

. Respondent/ Responclent/ Accused.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1OF 2014(CRLRC- MP. NO: 1801 OF 20 14)

¶16

Petition under Section 482 Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances statecl in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the criminal Revision Case by fixing an early date of hearing.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy.

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: The pubjic prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: -

¶19

The Court made the following: Judgment:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶25

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1152 OF 2OL4

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.03.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2O13 on the frle of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy (for short, "the appellate Court") confirming the judgment dated 31.07.2013 in C.C.No.935 of 2O1O on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy (for short, "the trial Court").

¶28

Heard Ms.Harshita, learned counsel representing Mr.B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is working in private service and respondent No.2/accused is doing business under the name and style of "Sri Raviputra Industries". It is stated that the accused had approached the complainant a'rrd offered to sell one Horizontal Boring Machine for Rs.8,00,000/-; the complainant

¶30

I I

¶31

¶32

accepted the said proposal and the son of accused entered into an agreement of sale dated 31.07.2009. Pursuant thereto, complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.25OO26 dated 27.O7.2OO9, for an amount of Rs.2,10,OO0/and another cheque bearing No.250027 dated 21.07.2009 for an amount of Rs.50,OOO/- through SBI Jeedimetla Branch, Hyderabad and balance of Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid on or before 30.09.2009. The remaining balance of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 30. 10.2O09; after purchasing the machine, the complainant checked the machine with an expert and came to know that the said machine is not satisfactory and the capacity of the machine is not standard. The complainant informed it to the accused; the accused stated that the said machine will be retained by the accused for his personal use and that he would repay the said amount of Rs.3,O0,OO0/-. It is the contention of the complainant that he visited the company ol the accused several times and requested for return of the said amount. On repeated requests, the accused gave the cheque bearing No.288523 drawn on SBI ICRISAT Extension counter, Patancheru dated 01.04.2010 for a sum of Rs.3,00,00O/ . At the time of giving the cheque the accused had taken the original Horizontal Boring Machine and the original sale agreement dated 37.07 .2OO9 and the original

¶33

¶34

¶35

invoice dated 21.07.2OO9. It is stated that on O2.O4.2OIO, the complainant intimated the accused that he is going to deposit the said cheque in his account but the accused stated that there are no sufficient funds and requested the complainant to deposit the said cheque after four months i.e., on or before 02.08.201O. On believing the words of the accused, the complainant had deposited the said cheque after stipulated time on2Z.O9.2OIO on on-line banking, SBI Serilingampally Branch for clearing the said cheque. But the said cheque was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. It is stated that the complainant had informed about the dishonour of cheque to accused. But in vain. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 1 1.10.2010. Upon receiving the said notice, the accused issued reply notice with false and baseless allegations. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short,^.NI Act").

¶36

The trial Court vide judgment dated 3I.OT.2Ol3 in C.C.No.935 of 201O found respondent No.2/accused not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and acquitted him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal. The

¶37

(

¶38

¶39

appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the Appeal. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tria,l Court as well as the appeilate Court erred in holding that the petitioner failed to establish that the said cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revision.

¶41

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that both the Courts, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision.

¶42

On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWl and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the defence none were examined ald no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, the trial Court observed that PW I , in his evidence admitted that there is no agreement between himself and the accused. PW1 further admitted that, at the time of sajd transaction, the accused was not present and he was not witness to the said agreement. He further testified that after he came to know that son of the accused Dhanraj Prasad

¶43

)

¶44

was not the owner and the accused was the owner of Ravi putra Industry. He also stated that Ex Pl was issued to him by Dhanraj Prasad and not by the accused. In reply notice/Ex p5, the accused had stated that he is not a party to the agreement and it is a transaction that took place between the complainant and the son of accused. The evidence of PW1 clearly shows that accused has not issued Ex P1 cheque to him towards legally enforceable debt and there is no nexus between the accused with regard to purchase of machinery and issuance of cheque. Therefore, from the evidence of witnesses, the trial Court observed that the complainant had utterly failed to establish the guilt of accused for the alleged offence, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, acquitted the accused.

¶45

In the appeal, the appellate Court observed that in the present case on hand, there.was a written agreement between the complainant and the accused, where under the son of the accused supplied the machine to the complainant and incurred the alleged debt following the return of the machine and the complainant sought for return of sum of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by him. In rie:r of the written agreement, there is no legally enforceable debt against the accused. Therefore, the appellate court also observed that the complainant failed to establish his

¶46

¶47

case against the accused beyond al1 reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the .iudgment^{passed by the trial Court.}

¶48

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 thereiore, 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 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.

¶49

¶50

¶51

In Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripural the Apex Court held as under:

¶52

'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, lar.r'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 vieu,s 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 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

¶53

'^{(zott) g scc lz,)}

¶54

¶55

record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the^judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling ald 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 ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed."

¶56

1 1. In Maloth Somaraju Vs, State of Andhra Pradesh2 the

¶57

Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong ald another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal ald unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where 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 acquittal, has taken such care.

¶58

'1zott1t^{scc o:y}

¶59

¶60

In view ol the Judgments referred to above and for the aforesaid reasons, I am ol the view that there are no merits in this Criminal Revision Case and the same is liable to be d ismi ssed.

¶61