Dismissed

R.K. Bhagwandas, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another

Telangana HC24 Jan 2025CRLA/1097/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant's appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case. The trial court found the cheques were issued blank as security in 2004, evidenced by counter foil and differing inks, and the debt claim was unproven. The High Court found the Magistrate's reasons record-based and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

R.K. Bhagwandas, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1097 oF 2010

¶7

. . . 9lili_nqt-Appeal^{filedunde_rSection378(4)of Cr.p.C.,against the Judgment} daled 13.04-2010 passed in cc.No.4O of 200b on the fiie^"of the court 6f tne XVl. Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

R.K. Bha gwandas, S/o. Srl R.K.Rajaiah, Occ Business, R/o. H.No 13-4-576t1 2/1 , Subzimandi, Ziaguda, Hyderabad.

¶10

...AppellanUComplainant

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State,of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 R.K. Pawar, S/o. Sri Hanmanlu, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 19-2-lOSlA,Tad Bun, Hyderabad.

¶14

... Respodents/Accused

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Y Subhash

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶19

¶20

_"r

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O97 of 2O1O

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

The present Appeal is frled b.f the

¶25

appellant/com.rlainant aggrieved by the judgmer.t dated 13.04.2010 in C.C.No.4O of 2009 on the f,rle of the XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hl,tlerabad.

¶26

Heard le arned counsei for the appellant/ complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/Stal.e Perused the record.

¶27

The appt:llant herein is the complainant before the Court belo',v. ile filed a complaint stating that in .lanuary, 2OO7 tl:e a.ccu.sed approached the complainant alc,ng with PW.2, namely D.Kesava Rao, for a hand loan of Rs.li0,OOO/and promised^'-o repay the same within 12 months. Accused issued two pos,t-dated cheques for Rs.25,O0O/- each, which were malked rls Exs.Pl and P2. The said cheques, when presented for collection on 05.02 .2OO8, the sanre were returned unpaid on the ground of "funds insufficien t,,. Legal

¶28

¶29

notice was issued. Since the amount was not paid by the accused.after receiving legal notice,^- a complaint was filed under Section 138 N.I.Act by the complainant.

¶30

4 The defense of the accused is that the cheques 1n question were issued in blank in a chit transaction, which the complainant was running without any license. The said cheques were misused and there was no loan taken as stated by the complainant in Jarutary,2OO7

¶31

The complainant examined himself as PW. 1, D.Kesava Rao as PW.2 and marked Exs.Pl to P8. The accused entered into witness box and examined himself as DW.1 and Ex.D1 was marked which is the record slip in bank passbook.

¶32

The learned trial judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds:

¶33

1 The complainant did not file any documents such as promissory note, bond etc., to prove that there was a debt tralsaction or loan tralsaction.

¶34

ii. Initially, the complainant stated that the cheques were issued in January, 2OO7^however in the^cross-

¶35

¶36

examination,PW. 1 stated that cheques were issued on 05.o2.20r18

¶37

iii. PW. 1 stzLted that it was PW.2, who introdr.tced the accused^--o him and informed that the security cheques wou lcl be given, if the amount is lent to the accused

¶38

iv. The urritings on Exs.Pl and P2 differs from the signature and separate ink was used. If the cheque was filled-up by the zrccused and issued at the same time, the question cf difference in ink does not arise

¶39

v. The accused examined himself as DW. 1 and marked Ex.I)l- wtLich is a cheque book with counter foil showing the date of issuance of cheque.

¶40

vi. The counter foil reveals that the cheques were it;sued on 24.CtL.2004.

¶41

vl1 Except the oral evidence of PW. 1 and two r:heques, no other documents were placed on record. Exr;.Pl and P2, wer€ given towards securit5r as evide:et from circurnstzLnces.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the appellan t would submit t.hzrt once the signatures on the chequ,:s were

¶43

¶44

admitted, presumption has to be drawn. Since the accused failed to prove that the cheques were issued in blank in a chit tralsaction, the trial court ought to have convicted the accgrsed.

¶45

In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raui Shanna o. State (Gooeratment of NCT of Delhi) and, anothert, held that 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 alalysed. The reason is that al order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal

¶46

ln Ghureg La.l o. State of tlttar Pradesh2 the Hon'ble

¶47

Supreme Court after referring to several Judgrnents regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at paraTO, as follows:

¶48

"70. In th.e lighf of the aboue, the High Court and other appellate Courts s?nuld follout th.e u.tell-settled principles

¶49

'^{(2022)I Supremecourtcases536}

¶50

'z^{(2008).10 Supreme Court Cases 450}

¶51

¶52

crystaltizec:. bg number of Judgments if it is goirtg to ouerule or othenuise disturb the trial court's acquittal.

¶53

The appellate court maA onlA ouerru.le or otheruLise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uery substontial and r:ompeiling reasons" for doing so.

¶54

.4 nuntber of instances aise in uhich the appellate court uould haue "uery substantial and compelling reason.s" to discard tLrc tial court's decision. "Very substantial and compellirry reasons" exist uhen:

¶55

i.) The tial court's conclusion with regord to the facts is palpablg urong:

¶56

i.i) The tial court's decision was based ort an etronectus t ieu.t of laut ;

¶57

tii) The trial court's judgment is likely to restLlt in "graue miscarriage of^justice";

¶58

tu) The entire approach of the tial court in dealincl uith the euidence ulas patentlg iIIegaI;

¶59

u) The tial court's judgment LDas manifestlg unjust and unreasonable;

¶60

ui) The tial court hcts ignored the euidence or misread the ntateic,.l euidence or has ignored mateial docur,,tents like dytng al.eclarations/ report of the ballistic expert, et2.

¶61

uii) This list k intended to be illustratiue:, not exhaustiue.

¶62

'.2. The appellate court must dluaAs giue proper u.,eight and cottsideration o the findings of the trial court. If ttuo reasonable uieu.ts can be reached_ one that leacls to acquittal, the other to conuiction _the High Court:;/ ap,pellate courts must rule in fauour of the acan.sed. "

¶63

¶64

1O. The checlues were issued by the accused. I{owever, I

¶65

according to hLm the cheques were issued in January, 2004 as evidenced under Ex.D1. The burden that shifts on to the accused can bt: discharged by preponderance of probabilities. According to Lee Iinding of the learned trial judge, the ink used to sign on the cheque was light compared to the writings

¶66

¶67

on the cheque. Since the appellant and pW.2 stated that the cheque was filled-up by the accused and handed over, the writings should have been similar and not with two different inks. The difference in writing is not disputed by the complainant. The accused has filed counter foil of the cheque book under Ex.Dl, to show that the cheques in question were issued way back in January, 2004. The said claim is supported by the writing on the cheques. The signature part is lighter when compared to the writings in the cheque.

¶68