K. Krupakar Reddy, Hanamkonda. vs Kunta Padma, Hanamkonda, Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4412 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1597 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the acquittal of the

respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') vide judgment in CC

No.391 of 2008 dated 27.01.2009 passed by the VI Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, filed the present

appeal.

2. The complainant is a medical practitioner, filed complaint

stating that he is well acquainted with respondent. One

K.Somi Reddy (PW1) is GPA holder of Complainant. The

complainant lent an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on different

dates to respondent. Having taken the said amount, on

repeated requests of the complainant, the respondent issued a

cheque Ex.P1 for Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. The said

cheque Ex.P1, when presented for clearance, was returned

with the endorsement 'funds insufficient' vide Ex.P2. A legal

notice was issued which is Ex.P3. Since the payment was not

made, the complainant-A.Krupakar Reddy filed the present

complaint. After filing of the said complaint, GPA was given to

K.Somi Reddy. The said K.Somi Reddy examined himself as

P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P10.

3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the

following grounds; i) the complainant Krupakar Reddy, after

filing of the said complaint gave GPA to P.W.1-K.Somi Reddy.

The said Krupakar Reddy did not examine himself before the

Court and the GPA-Somi Reddy knew about the facts of the

case after filing of the complaint; ii) Unless the complainant

Krupakar Reddy deposed before the Court, the Court cannot

come to the conclusion whether there is any legally

enforceable debt between Krupakar Reddy and the

respondent-accused since Somi Reddy is a third person to

the transaction; iii) If the GPA holder obtains permission prior

to filing of the complaint, then it would have been valid; iv) The

complaint itself is not maintainable as it is not filed by the

Somi Reddy-GPA holder, but he came on record subsequently.

4. The finding of the learned Magistrate cannot be found

fault with. The complaint was filed by Krupakar Reddy and

without examining himself, GPA was given in favour of K.Somi

Reddy. It is not mentioned in the complaint that the said

K.Somi Reddy has personal knowledge about the transactions

that transpired in between the complainant-Krupakar Reddy

and respondent. Though P.W.1 stated that he is the witness to

Exs.P6 to P8 promissory notes, P.W.1 can at best be witness to

execution of the said promissory notes and unless the

complainant-Krupakar Reddy is examined as rightfully found

by the learned Magistrate, the complaint is not maintainable.

5. 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.

6. In the said circumstances, since the finding of the

learned Magistrate that the complaint in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case is not maintainable cannot

be found fault with it.

7. In view of the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to

interfere with the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate.

8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 06.09.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1597 OF 2009

Date: 06.09.2022.

kvs