HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.153 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant, who is the complainant aggrieved by the judgment in S.T.C No.107 of 2008 dated 24.08.2009 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of Firsts Class, Khammam in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed the present appeal.
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs on 13.04.2005 and promissory note was also executed on the very same day. After several demands, cheque for Rs.50,000/- was issued on 07.11.2007. The said cheque when presented for clearance, was returned for the reason of 'insufficient funds'. Having received the Bank Memo dated 10.12.2007, notice was issued on 12.12.2007. Since the accused did not pay the amount covered by the cheque after receiving the legal notice, complaint was filed.
3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 admitted the documents Exs.D1 to D7, as such, they were brought on record.
4. The learned Magistrate having considered the evidence on record acquitted the accused on the following grounds; i) In the promissory note Ex.P1, date was corrected from 2003 to 2005, which is a material alteration; ii) Though the cheque was issued in the month of November, 2007, the subsequent cheque numbers in Exs.D1 & 2 are 1 ½ years prior to the present cheque, which is doubtful iii) the accused has discharged his burden; iv) The complainant has come to the court with unclean hands by altering the date in the promissory note.
5. When it is apparent that the date on the promissory note was changed from the year 2003 to 2005, it is for the complainant to prove under what circumstances and who made such changes. Without giving any explanation regarding the alteration of the date, the logical conclusion is that the complainant has come up with a false case to prosecute the accused. Further, the fact of the subsequent cheques to the cheque in question being issued 1 ½ years prior to the present cheque also raises suspicion regarding the correctness of the complainant's case. For the said reasons of the complainant coming up with a false case and the findings of the learned Magistrate being reasonable on the basis of record, the judgment needs no interference.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
7. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Magistrate
8. For the reasons discussed in the preceding paras, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.11.2022 kvs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.153 of 2010 Date: 11.11.2022.
kvs