Telangana High Court
Damera Yadagiri vs The State Of A.P. Another on 22 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1455 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is questioning the acquittal recorded by the
I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal vide
judgment in C.C.No.575 of 2004, dated 12.04.2007 acquitting
the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act').
2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that he is the
President of Mastya Parishramika Sahakara Sangam of
Mucherla Nagaram village of Hasanparthy Mandal and the
fishermen are members of the said Sangam. The
respondent/accused is closely acquainted with him and he
used to purchase fish from the Sangam. In between
26.04.2003 to 21.05.2003, fish was taken on cash basis,
which is a total of Rs.13,50,000/-. After several requests, two
cheques Exs.P1 and P2 were issued towards discharge of the
total outstanding. When the said cheques were presented for
clearance, they were returned unpaid with an endorsement
'insufficient funds'.
3. Ex.P5, a copy of the legal notice was served on the
respondent/accused.
4. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 3 on behalf of the
complainant and marked Exs.P1 to P12, and also examined
D.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the respondent/accused and
marked Exs.D1 to D4. Learned Magistrate after considering
the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the
respondent/accused on the following grounds;
i) Exs.D1 and D2 are the vouchers dated 01.04.2004 and
29.05.2004 respectively, which were marked during the cross-
examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 admitted that signatures on the
vouchers Exs.D1 and D2 are that of M.Kattaiah,(PW2) who is
the Vice President of the Sangam;
ii) D.W.2 is the scribe of Exs.D1 and D2, who admitted
the execution of documents and receipt of the amounts from
the appellant;
iii) having compared the signatures of P.W.2 on Exs.D1
and D2 and also his signature on the depositions, it can be
said that the signatures are that of P.W.2.
iv) Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, when
once a person signed on a document, it is presumed that it
was towards the execution of receipt of the amount.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
learned Magistrate had erred in relying upon Exs.D1 and D2
when P.W.2 who is alleged to have signed, denied his
signatures on Exs.D1 and D2. In the said circumstances, the
Court comparing the signatures and passing a judgment that
Exs.D1 and D2 executed by P.W.2 on behalf of Sangam
towards outstanding cannot be said to be legal, for the said
reasons, acquittal order has to be reversed.
6. As seen from the record and findings of Magistrate, P.W.1
had in fact admitted the signatures of P.W.2 on Exs.D1 and
D2. Though, P.W.2, who is the Vice President of the Sangam
is illiterate, he slowly signs his signature. The learned
Magistrate compared signatures on Exs.D1 and D2 and also
the signatures made in the deposition of P.W.2. Further,
D.W.2, who has written the said vouchers Exs.D1 and D2
stated that they were executed in his presence in token of
receipt of the outstanding amount.
7. Learned Magistrate comparing the signatures on Exs.D1
and D2 and in the deposition cannot be said to be beyond the
powers of the Court. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act
reads as follows:
"73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or
proved.--In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that
of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any
signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the
Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared
with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or
seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court
may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for
the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so
written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such
person. 1[This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to
finger-impressions.]"
8. Though constraint should be shown while comparing the
signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act by a
Court, but in the present case, P.W.2 was an illiterate and
according to the learned Magistrate, he was slowly writing his
name as his signature. In the said circumstances, comparison
by the learned Magistrate basing upon the speed, the
signatures appended by P.W.2 cannot be said to be
improbable and the learned Magistrate was within his powers
in the facts and circumstances to compare the signatures of
P.W.2 and to come to a conclusion.
9. Further, there is corroboration regarding the signatures
of P.W.2 on Exs.D1 and D2 by P.W.1, the complainant himself
and also D.W.2, who has written the contents of Exs.D1 and
D2.
10. 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
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
implication. But then, this has to be established on record of
the Court.
10. In the said facts and circumstances, the findings of the
learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.07.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1455 OF 2007
Date: 22.07.2022.
kvs
