Vaka Venkata Reddy, Nalgonda ... vs State Of A.P.,Rep.By Its Pp.,High ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5780 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1241 of 2010
JUDGMENT:

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

judgment in Crl.A.No.138 of 2008 dated 02.08.2010 passed by

the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, reversing the order

of conviction passed in CC No.29 of 2005 dated 29.08.2008 by

the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kodad and 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.50,000/- and executed

promissory note on 10.01.2002. On the insistence of the

complaint a cheque for Rs.84,000/- was issued on

10.08.2004, which according to the complainant is the

outstanding collected with interest. The said cheque, when

presented for clearance was returned unpaid with an

endorsement 'account closed'. Having issued legal notice

intimating return of the cheque and due to the failure of the

accused to pay the amount covered by the cheque, complaint

was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The accused preferred appeal and the learned Sessions

Judge reversed the judgment of conviction on the ground that

statutory notice was not served on the accused and the

complainant failed to prove that the accused was residing in

the address mentioned in Ex.P6.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that a

certified copy of the petition in IP No.2 of 2005 is filed by the

accused in the trial court, which reflects the very same

address as mentioned in Ex.P6.

5. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is that it was

specifically mentioned by the postman that the addressee was

absent in the said address. It is the specific case of the

accused that due to pressure of the debtors, he fled the village.

He also entered into the witness box and stated that he had

filed the Insolvency Petition and unable to bear the pressure

from the debtors, he was not living in Mogalaikota village,

which is to the knowledge of the complainant.

6. The contention of the accused that he was not residing in

the said address is probablised by the endorsement on the

postal cover that the accused was absent. Though, there is a

presumption that if the notice is sent to the correct address, it

shall be deemed to have been served, however, it is to the

knowledge of the complainant that the accused had fled the

village due to the pressure from the debtors.

7. 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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false

implication. But then, this has to be established on record of

the Court.

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

the learned Sessions Judge reversing the order of conviction

and acquitting the 2nd respondent/accused.

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

appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.11.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1241 of 2010

Date: 11.11.2022.

kvs