Jakkampudi Sampath Kumar, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5778 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.153 of 2010
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant, who is the complainant aggrieved by the

judgment in S.T.C No.107 of 2008 dated 24.08.2009 passed by

the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of Firsts Class, Khammam

in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed the present appeal.

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that the accused

has borrowed an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs on 13.04.2005 and

promissory note was also executed on the very same day. After

several demands, cheque for Rs.50,000/- was issued on

07.11.2007. The said cheque when presented for clearance,

was returned for the reason of 'insufficient funds'. Having

received the Bank Memo dated 10.12.2007, notice was issued

on 12.12.2007. Since the accused did not pay the amount

covered by the cheque after receiving the legal notice,

complaint was filed.

3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked

Exs.P1 to P8. During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 admitted the documents Exs.D1 to D7, as such, they were

brought on record.

4. The learned Magistrate having considered the evidence

on record acquitted the accused on the following grounds; i) In

the promissory note Ex.P1, date was corrected from 2003 to

2005, which is a material alteration; ii) Though the cheque

was issued in the month of November, 2007, the subsequent

cheque numbers in Exs.D1 & 2 are 1 ½ years prior to the

present cheque, which is doubtful iii) the accused has

discharged his burden; iv) The complainant has come to the

court with unclean hands by altering the date in the

promissory note.

5. When it is apparent that the date on the promissory note

was changed from the year 2003 to 2005, it is for the

complainant to prove under what circumstances and who

made such changes. Without giving any explanation regarding

the alteration of the date, the logical conclusion is that the

complainant has come up with a false case to prosecute the

accused. Further, the fact of the subsequent cheques to the cheque in question being issued 1 ½ years prior to the present

cheque also raises suspicion regarding the correctness of the

complainant's case. For the said reasons of the complainant

coming up with a false case and the findings of the learned

Magistrate being reasonable on the basis of record, the

judgment needs no interference.

6. 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.

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

7. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of

the learned Magistrate

8. For the reasons discussed in the preceding paras, the

appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.11.2022 kvs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.153 of 2010

Date: 11.11.2022.

kvs