K.Ramakrishna Reddy vs Pullagura Sudhakar And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5199 Tel

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1136 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/ defacto complainant

aggrieved by the Judgment of the Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Secunderabad in Crl.A.No.229 of 2008, dt.13.02.2009, whereby the

Sessions Court set aside the conviction recorded by the trial Court in

C.C.No.397 of 2005 dt. 16.07.2008 and acquitted the accused for the

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that a cheque was issued by

the 1st respondent/accused for Rs.1,60,000/- as he was due to the

appellant/complainant, on account of the complainant paying

Rs.1,60,000/- as consideration for purchasing a plot in the name of

accused. The said amount was given to the vendors of the accused and

when the accused issued the cheque towards discharge of his debt, the

said cheque was returned unpaid for the reason of insufficient funds. A

statutory notice was sent and since the accused failed to pay the amount

covered by cheque, the complainant/appellant filed a private complaint

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned

Magistrate.

3. Learned Magistrate having examined the complainant as PW1 and

marking Exs.P1 to P6 and also examining the accused who entered into

the box as DW1, concluded that the 1st respondent/accused is guilty of the

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

sentenced to one year imprisonment and also imposed fine.

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the accused preferred an appeal.

On adjudication, the learned Sessions Judge found that the

appellant/accused was not guilty for the offence as there was no liability or

any legally enforceable debt since the loan amount which was taken by the

respondent/accused was credited to the account of the complainant.

Further, Ex.D1-Sale Deed was on 19.12.2003 which was earlier to Ex.P5-

receipt executed by the 1st respondent/accused in favour of the

complainant on 03.09.2004. Ex.P5 was executed on 03.09.2004 i.e. nearly

ten months after the purchase of the plot. In the said circumstances, the

learned Sessions Judge found that the claim of the complainant was false

and there is any amount of suspicion regarding Ex.P5. Ex.P5-receipt was

dated 03.09.2004, but, the sale was executed on 19.12.2003. As such, the

complainant had taken cheque-Ex.P1 in blank form, which was

subsequently filled up.

6. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge was that in the

background of Ex.D1-sale deed, it is apparent that Ex.P1 and P5 were

fabricated to suit the complainant's case.

7. The construction agreement dt.17.01.2004 was also found to be

fabricated by the sessions Judge because it was created under the guise of

promise to construct the house for employees. The finding of the learned

Sessions Judge is based on record and reasonable.

8. In cases of acquittal, the appellate Court cannot interfere with the

order of acquittal unless it is found to be contrary to the evidence on

record and also drawing conclusions which are improbable. The

conclusions drawn by the learned Sessions Judge are probable and

supported by documents.

9. In the said circumstances, the complainant/appellant has not made

out any grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal except stating that

the cheque is admitted. The reasons given by the Sessions Judge cannot

be interfered with.

10. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal Appeal,

shall stand closed.

________________ K.SURENDER, J 19.10.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1136 OF 2009

Dt. 19.10.2022

tk