HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1607 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant/complainant aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which acquittal was recorded by I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.Appeal No.350 of 2008 by reversing the judgment of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Secunderabad, filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the trial court. The case of the complainant is that Rs.1.00 lakh was borrowed by the accused from the complainant and promised to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 36% per annum. However, the accused failed to pay the said amount for considerable time and thereafter, issued cheques in question, which are Exs.P4 to P6. Corresponding promissory notes were also executed, which are Exs.P1 to P3. The learned Magistrate having found that the loan was proved and that there was legally enforceable debt on the cheques which were given, convicted the accused for the said offence. However, the learned 2 Sessions Judge, in appeal, reversed the finding of conviction on the ground that P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the cheques Exs.P4 to P6 along with promotes Exs.P1 to P3 were written by the complainant. If the writings in promotes and cheques were written by the complainant, his claim that on persistent demand, the accused issued cheques, could not be accepted.
3. P.W.2, who is a common friend of the accused and the complainant, stated that in the year 2004, he has gone to the Bank of the accused and that the complainant had shown him the pronotes and cheques, as such, the version of complainant that the cheques were issued in July, 2005 could not be believed. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the accused has paid more than the amount which was due. On the basis of admission by P.W.1, the learned Sessions Judge found that the complainant has received the entire amount and the cheques Exs.P4 to P6 were issued towards collateral security at the time of giving loan.
4. Perused the record. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based upon the admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the amount due was already paid and the cheques in question were taken as a 3 security in the year 2004 itself. The said finding of the learned Sessions Judge is based upon admission of P.Ws.1 and 2. In the said circumstances, I find no reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
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 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. The appellant has not made out any grounds to suggest that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge are unreasonable or that 1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 4 they are not based on record. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.09.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1607 of 2009 Date: 22.09.2022.
kvs