HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1597 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') vide judgment in CC No.391 of 2008 dated 27.01.2009 passed by the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, filed the present appeal.
2. The complainant is a medical practitioner, filed complaint stating that he is well acquainted with respondent. One K.Somi Reddy (PW1) is GPA holder of Complainant. The complainant lent an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on different dates to respondent. Having taken the said amount, on repeated requests of the complainant, the respondent issued a cheque Ex.P1 for Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. The said cheque Ex.P1, when presented for clearance, was returned with the endorsement 'funds insufficient' vide Ex.P2. A legal notice was issued which is Ex.P3. Since the payment was not made, the complainant-A.Krupakar Reddy filed the present 2 complaint. After filing of the said complaint, GPA was given to K.Somi Reddy. The said K.Somi Reddy examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P10.
3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the following grounds; i) the complainant Krupakar Reddy, after filing of the said complaint gave GPA to P.W.1-K.Somi Reddy. The said Krupakar Reddy did not examine himself before the Court and the GPA-Somi Reddy knew about the facts of the case after filing of the complaint; ii) Unless the complainant Krupakar Reddy deposed before the Court, the Court cannot come to the conclusion whether there is any legally enforceable debt between Krupakar Reddy and the respondent-accused since Somi Reddy is a third person to the transaction; iii) If the GPA holder obtains permission prior to filing of the complaint, then it would have been valid; iv) The complaint itself is not maintainable as it is not filed by the Somi Reddy-GPA holder, but he came on record subsequently.
4. The finding of the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with. The complaint was filed by Krupakar Reddy and 3 without examining himself, GPA was given in favour of K.Somi Reddy. It is not mentioned in the complaint that the said K.Somi Reddy has personal knowledge about the transactions that transpired in between the complainant-Krupakar Reddy and respondent. Though P.W.1 stated that he is the witness to Exs.P6 to P8 promissory notes, P.W.1 can at best be witness to execution of the said promissory notes and unless the complainant-Krupakar Reddy is examined as rightfully found by the learned Magistrate, the complaint is not maintainable.
5. 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 1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 4 accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
6. In the said circumstances, since the finding of the learned Magistrate that the complaint in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case is not maintainable cannot be found fault with it.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 06.09.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1597 OF 2009 Date: 06.09.2022.
kvs 6