HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1325 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant, who is the complainant aggrieved by the judgment in Crl.A.No.200 of 2007 dated 05.05.2009 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad in reversing the order of conviction passed in CC No.529 of 2006 dated 06.12.2007 by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad and acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed the present appeal.
2. The appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the 1st respondent/accused stating that out of acquaintance, Rs.10.00 lakhs was given towards loan on 12.05.2006. At the time of payment, cheque dated 14.06.2006 was issued for the said amount. Immediately thereafter on 27.07.2006, the 1st respondent issued legal notice denying any debt and the appellant issued reply notice on 07.08.2006. Again rejoinder notice was sent on 20.08.2006 by the 1st respondent. The 2 subject cheque was presented for clearance on 01.08.2006, which was returned unpaid. Notice dated 21.08.2006 was issued to the 1st respondent and thereafter, when the 1st respondent failed to pay the amount covered by the cheque, complaint was filed.
3. During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The 1st respondent examined the Branch Manager, UBI, Bowenpally branch as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.
4. Considering the evidence adduced during the course of trial, learned Magistrate found that the 1st respondent was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs.
5. Aggrieved by the conviction, the 1st respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.200 of 2007 before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. The learned 3 Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the following grounds; i) P.W.1 is an Advocate and even according to him, the 1st respondent was his client and lorry driver, as such, it is not believable that Rs.10.00 lakhs was given by the Advocate to the client, who is a lorry driver; ii) There were criminal disputes in between the appellant and the 1st respondent and admittedly, the wife of the 1st respondent filed criminal case in Cr.No.452 of 2006 under Section 354 of IPC against P.W.1; iii) Ex.D2 is bank statement produced by D.W.1 Branch Manager during the relevant time, P.W.1 took loan of Rs.7,25,000/- for purchasing a plot, as such, lending Rs.10.00 lakhs after some time cannot be believed; iv) Being an advocate, it is not believable that without any document being executed an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was given to the 1st respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Sessions Judge had committed error in reversing the well considered judgment of the learned Magistrate. The signatures on the cheque is not disputed and once the cheque 4 belongs to the 1st respondent, there is a presumption which is drawn and since the 1st respondent failed to rebut the presumption, even by preponderance of probability, the conviction has to be maintained and the judgment of the learned Sessions Court has to be reversed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned order while reversing the judgment of the learned Magistrate and cannot be interfered with.
8. Admittedly, P.W.1 is an Advocate and the 1st respondent, who was his client was a lorry driver. For the reason of molesting his wife, Crime No.452 of 2006 under Section 354 of IPC was registered against P.W.1. Except the testimony of P.W.1 that the amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was advanced to the 1st respondent/accused, there is no other evidence either oral or documentary to substantiate that loan was advanced to the 1st respondent. The said corroboration is necessary in the back ground of the case. P.W.1 has taken loan of Rs.7.25 lakhs during 2004 from the Bank for purchase of plot. The case of 5 appellant is that the amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was advanced during June, 2006 to the 1st respondent, who is a lorry driver, and also his client, is highly improbable and unbelievable.
9. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge while reversing the judgment of conviction is based on record, reasonable and logical.
10. 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 1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 6 implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
11. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge reversing the order of conviction and acquitting the 1st respondent.
12. For the reasons discussed in the preceding paras, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 27.10.2022 kvs 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1325 of 2009 Date: 27.10.2022.
kvs