M/S. Vijaya Lakshmi Enterprises, ... vs M/S. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7493 AP

                                  1
                                                                  CMR, J.
                                                      Crl.A.No.898 of 2016




 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                 Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, dated 24.06.2016,

passed in C.C.No.805 of 2015 on the file of the II Special

Magistrate's Court, Vijayawada, the instant Criminal Appeal is

preferred by the appellant.

2) The appellant - M/s.Vijaya Lakshmi Enterprises is the

complainant in C.C.No.805 of 2015 on the file of the II Special

Magistrate's Court, Vijayawada. It has filed the said complaint for

the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, against the respondents 1 and 2 herein on the

ground that the cheque that was issued by them to the

complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or

liability was dishonoured. The accused were prosecuted for the

said offence in the trial Court. Eventually, the trial Court by the

impugned judgment acquitted the accused.

3) Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the present

Criminal Appeal is preferred by the complainant.

CMR, J.

Crl.A.No.898 of 2016

4) This is an old appeal of the year 2016. Inspite of granting

several adjournments, the appellant is not turning-up for hearing

in this appeal. As there was continuously no representation on

behalf of the appellant, the matter is posted to this day under the

caption 'for orders'. Today also, the appellant or its counsel did

not turn-up for hearing. Even the respondents 1 and 2 also did

not turn-up for hearing.

5) Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

3rd respondent State.

6) So, the appeal is being disposed of on merits, as per the

material available on record.

7)      Perused the record.


8)      It is well-settled law that the Courts will lightly interfere with

the judgment of acquittal.        Unless the impugned judgment is

perverse and the findings are recorded on improper appreciation

of evidence on record, the Courts will not usually interfere with

the judgment of acquittal.

9) As can be seen from the impugned judgment of acquittal,

after considering the evidence on record and on proper

CMR, J.

Crl.A.No.898 of 2016

appreciation of the same, the trial Court found that Ex.P1 cheque

was not issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for

discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. The trial

Court also found that the complainant failed to prove that there is

any legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the accused

to discharge in favour of the complainant. Therefore, having

found that it is not proved that Ex.P1 cheque was issued towards

discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, the trial Court

recorded the said finding of acquittal against the accused therein.

The said finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is found to

be based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.

10) Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is perfectly

sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in this

appeal.

11) Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:29.09.2022.

cs