U.V.Suresh Kumar vs G.Venkata Reddy And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5370 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1325 of 2009
JUDGMENT:

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

judgment in Crl.A.No.200 of 2007 dated 05.05.2009 passed by

the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad in

reversing the order of conviction passed in CC No.529 of 2006

dated 06.12.2007 by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad and acquitting the accused for the offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed the

present appeal.

2. The appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act against the 1st

respondent/accused stating that out of acquaintance,

Rs.10.00 lakhs was given towards loan on 12.05.2006. At the

time of payment, cheque dated 14.06.2006 was issued for the

said amount. Immediately thereafter on 27.07.2006, the 1st

respondent issued legal notice denying any debt and the

appellant issued reply notice on 07.08.2006. Again rejoinder

notice was sent on 20.08.2006 by the 1st respondent. The

subject cheque was presented for clearance on 01.08.2006,

which was returned unpaid. Notice dated 21.08.2006 was

issued to the 1st respondent and thereafter, when the 1st

respondent failed to pay the amount covered by the cheque,

complaint was filed.

3. During the course of trial, the complainant examined

himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The 1st respondent

examined the Branch Manager, UBI, Bowenpally branch as

D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.

4. Considering the evidence adduced during the course of

trial, learned Magistrate found that the 1st respondent was

guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and accordingly sentenced him to

imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay

compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs.

5. Aggrieved by the conviction, the 1st respondent preferred

Criminal Appeal No.200 of 2007 before the Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. The learned

Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence on record,

acquitted the accused on the following grounds; i) P.W.1 is an

Advocate and even according to him, the 1st respondent was

his client and lorry driver, as such, it is not believable that

Rs.10.00 lakhs was given by the Advocate to the client, who is

a lorry driver; ii) There were criminal disputes in between the

appellant and the 1st respondent and admittedly, the wife of

the 1st respondent filed criminal case in Cr.No.452 of 2006

under Section 354 of IPC against P.W.1; iii) Ex.D2 is bank

statement produced by D.W.1 Branch Manager during the

relevant time, P.W.1 took loan of Rs.7,25,000/- for purchasing

a plot, as such, lending Rs.10.00 lakhs after some time cannot

be believed; iv) Being an advocate, it is not believable that

without any document being executed an amount of Rs.10.00

lakhs was given to the 1st respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

learned Sessions Judge had committed error in reversing the

well considered judgment of the learned Magistrate. The

signatures on the cheque is not disputed and once the cheque

belongs to the 1st respondent, there is a presumption which is

drawn and since the 1st respondent failed to rebut the

presumption, even by preponderance of probability, the

conviction has to be maintained and the judgment of the

learned Sessions Court has to be reversed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent

submits that judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is well

reasoned order while reversing the judgment of the learned

Magistrate and cannot be interfered with.

8. Admittedly, P.W.1 is an Advocate and the 1st respondent,

who was his client was a lorry driver. For the reason of

molesting his wife, Crime No.452 of 2006 under Section 354 of

IPC was registered against P.W.1. Except the testimony of

P.W.1 that the amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was advanced to the

1st respondent/accused, there is no other evidence either oral

or documentary to substantiate that loan was advanced to the

1st respondent. The said corroboration is necessary in the back

ground of the case. P.W.1 has taken loan of Rs.7.25 lakhs

during 2004 from the Bank for purchase of plot. The case of

appellant is that the amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was advanced

during June, 2006 to the 1st respondent, who is a lorry driver,

and also his client, is highly improbable and unbelievable.

9. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge while reversing

the judgment of conviction is based on record, reasonable and

logical.

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.

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

the learned Sessions Judge reversing the order of conviction

and acquitting the 1st respondent.

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

appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 27.10.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1325 of 2009

Date: 27.10.2022.

kvs