Telangana High Court
B. Madhu Sudan Reddy, Hyderabad. vs M/. Devender Reddy, Hyderabad, And Anr. on 18 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2218 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the complainant aggrieved by the reversing judgment of the Sessions Court. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, however, the said finding was reversed in the appeal by the Sessions Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- was taken by the accused and agreed to repay the same within the stipulated time. However, towards repayment, cheque in question was issued on 10.04.2004. The said cheque when presented for clearance was returned unpaid by the bank. Notice was issued and on failure by the accused to pay the amount covered under the cheque, a complaint was filed before the trial Court. Learned Magistrate convicted the accused.
2
4. However, in appeal, learned Sessions Judge found that the initial burden on the complainant was not discharged to show that cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt. Though Ex.P.8 returns were filed, it did not reflect that there was any hand loan paid. However, Ex.P.7, which is statement of affairs pertaining to the year 2001-2002/computation was filed, it was not proved by the complainant that the very same Ex.P.7 was filed with the Income Tax authorities. On the said basis, since initial onus on the complainant was not discharged and the defence is probable that the cheque was issued for a settlement and not towards outstanding, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that once the Court finds that cheque was not issued towards any settlement as claimed, the question of acquitting the accused does not arise. In fact, the burden which is shifted on to the accused was not discharged.
6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 3 Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
7. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;2
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 4
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
8. However, under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C., an order of acquittal cannot be reversed and this Court is prohibited from convicting the accused. No grounds are made out to remand the case back to the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.07.2024 dv