HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1265 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellants/complainants aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.465 of 2003, dated 09.04.2009, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant/appellant is that he had given an amount of Rs.13 lakhs to the accused to meet the financial requirements of the accused. To repay the said outstanding amount, two cheques (Exs.P1 and P2) in question were issued by the accused. When the said cheques were presented for clearance, they were returned unpaid. Aggrieved by the return of the cheques, legal notice was sent, copy of which is Ex.P4. Since the accused failed to repay the amount after issuance of notice, complaint was filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the civil Court has found that there is liability and the respondents/accused are liable to pay the amount. Since the signatures on the cheques are not disputed, it has to be presumed that the cheques were issued for valid 2 consideration. Learned Counsel further submits that there is ample documentary evidence to show that the amounts were taken by the accused and to clear the said outstanding, the cheques in question were given by the respondents/accused. The reasons given for acquitting the respondents/accused by the Court below are totally untenable and not based on the evidence placed on record both oral and documentary.
4. The learned Magistrate examined PW1 on behalf of complainant and marked Exs.P1 to P19. In defence, the 2nd respondent-accused No.2 was examined himself as DW1 and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked.
5. Learned Magistrate after conclusion of trial found that the cheques Exs.P1 and P2 were given towards security in the transaction. Ex.D5 is the Certified Copy of the Receipt which was filed by the accused alleged to have been executed for Rs.13 lakhs. The said receipt was sent to scientific expert who gave an opinion that the receipt in fact was for Rs.3 lakhs and that the numerical '1' was added subsequently before the numeric '3'. Learned Magistrate also found that the document clearly shows that there were interpolations in the receipt and disbelieved that the complainant had extended an amount of Rs.13 lakhs. Further, the complainant/appellant had deliberately 3 suppressed the said receipt. The said receipt was not disputed by the complainant and on account of interpolations in the said receipt, the Court had come to a conclusion that there was no legally enforceable debt of Rs.13 ½ lakhs which was covered by Exs.P1 and P2. The findings of the learned Magistrate are on the basis of the fabricated receipt.
6. The claim of the complainant is that he has advanced an amount of Rs.13 ½ lakhs for which receipt was issued. However, the receipt was marked in defence as Ex.D5 and the Court had sent the said receipt to an expert's opinion and it was found that the numerical '1' was interpolated.
7. Learned counsel for appellant argued that since the Civil Court has found that the accused are liable, the said finding of the Civil Court is binding on the Criminal Court and to draw an inference of outstanding. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the findings of the Civil Court are in fact not binding on a Criminal Court. However, the present case is against the orders of acquittal. In the said circumstances, the Court found that there was no outstanding and accordingly acquitted the respondents.
4
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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.
9. The present appeal is decided keeping in view the parameters prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of acquittal. The finding in the present appeal is confined to the proceedings in the form of appeal against acquittal before this Court.
10. In view of the above I find no infirmity in the said finding which is based on the evidence both oral and documentary produced before the Court. Unless there are glaring inconsistencies in the findings or the findings are contrary to the evidence on record, the appellate Court 1 (2013) 11 SCC 688 5 in an appeal against acquittal can interfere with the said order. I find no grounds to interfere with the order of the acquittal.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 16.09.2022 tk 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1265 OF 2009 Dated: 16.09.2022 tk