Nemalipuri Nageswara Rao vs The State Of A.P., Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7266 AP

  HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                Criminal Appeal No.869 of 2016

Judgment:

     This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated

16-12-2015 passed in Crl. Appeal No.98 of 2015 on the file of the

III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby the judgment of

conviction and sentence passed against the 2nd respondent in

C.C.No.131 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class for Railways, Guntur, was set aside and the 2 nd respondent

was acquitted in the said case.

     2. Despite granting several adjournments, the appellant is not

turning up for hearing in this old appeal of the year 2016.

Therefore, when the matter was listed for hearing on 30-8-2022, this

Court has held that there was no representation on behalf of the

appellant and that the appellant has been continuously not turning

up for hearing in this appeal and thereby posted the matter finally

to this day i.e. on 21-9-2022 under the caption "For Orders".

     3. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the

appellant and the appellant did not turn up for hearing. Therefore,

heard learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
                                           2



      4. The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.131 of 2014 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways,

Guntur.     He has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the 2nd respondent on the

ground that the cheque that was issued by him towards the

discharge     of    his    legally   enforceable     debt   or    liability    was

dishonoured.        The 2nd respondent was prosecuted for the said

offence and the trial Court found him guilty for the said offence and

accordingly     convicted      him    and       sentenced   him    to   undergo

imprisonment.

      5. The 2nd respondent, who felt aggrieved by the said judgment

of conviction and sentence, preferred appeal in Crl. Appeal No.98

of 2015 to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

The   appeal       was    allowed    by   the    impugned    judgment         dated

16-12-2015 and the judgment of conviction in C.C.No.131 of 2014

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways,

Guntur, was set aside and the 2nd respondent was acquitted of the

said offence.

      6. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has preferred the

present appeal questioning the legality and validity of the impugned

judgment of acquittal.
                                    3



     7. As noticed supra, inspite of granting several adjournments

and opportunities, the appellant did not turn up for hearing in this

old appeal of the year 2016. Therefore, the appeal is being disposed

of on merits after going through the record on merits.

     8. It is well settled law that this Court will lightly interfere with

the judgment of acquittal. Only when it is shown that the judgment

of acquittal was passed completely ignoring the evidence on record

or when it is shown that the findings recorded for acquitting the

accused are perverse, this Court usually interferes with the

judgment of acquittal. As can be seen from the impugned judgment

of acquittal, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded the finding of

acquittal on proper appreciation of evidence on record.             After

considering the evidence on record and after subjecting the same to

scrutiny, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant has

no requisite financial capacity to lend a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- to the

2nd respondent and thereby found that the 2nd respondent is not due

to pay any amount of money to the appellant.              Therefore, the

learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the case pleaded by the

complainant that the 2nd respondent has issued the cheque in

question towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt or

liability. Ergo, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the finding of

acquittal in favour of the 2nd respondent.       Upon considering the
                                     4



evidence on record and the findings recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge, this Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the

impugned order warranting interference of this Court to reverse the

said finding of acquittal.     Therefore, there are no merits in this

appeal to entertain the same.

     9. Resultantly, the criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming

the judgment of acquittal of the learned III Additional Sessions

Judge, Guntur. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.



                             _________________________________________
                             CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

21st September, 2022. Ak

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Criminal Appeal No.869 of 2016

21st September, 2022.

(Ak)