Telangana High Court
Smt. Bhagamma, vs Bhujender And Another, on 13 September, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.415 of 2009
1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
vide judgment in CC No.461 of 2007 dated 27.01.2009
passed by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Rajendranagar, the appellant/complainant filed the present
appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will
be referred to as arrayed in the Calendar Case. The case of
the complainant is that she is the owner of plot bearing
No.293 in Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Katedan. She was in need
of money and wanted to sell the said plot. The accused were
acquainted with the complainant and having knowledge
about the sale consideration amount lying with her,
requested the complainant to lend an amount of Rs.2.00
lakhs and promised to return within 2 or 3 days. However,
the amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs was not returned, for which
reason, the accused issued cheque bearing No.648407,
dated 15.12.2006 for an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh. When the
said cheque was presented for clearance, the same was
returned unpaid on 14.03.2007 with an endorsement
'insufficient funds'. The bouncing of the cheque was
intimated to the accused by sending a legal notice. Though
the said notice was received, the accused failed to make
good the payment of Rs.1.00 lakh, for which reason,
complaint was filed.
3. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Magistrate
found that the subject cheque was issued by A1 for
purchase of the plot No.293 and not towards discharge of
any liability or loan as claimed by the complainant.
4. To prove that the cheque was in fact issued for
purchase of plot, A1 examined himself as D.W.1 and
another N.Narsimha as D.W.2 and filed certified copy of sale
deed Ex.D1 dated 05.06.2006. The learned Magistrate
further found that the plot was in the name of
complainant's husband, who has sold the plot for Rs 3
lakhs to meet his family needs and legal necessities. In such
circumstances, it was not known as to how Rs.2.00 lakh
was given to the accused.
5. The finding of the learned Magistrate is based on the
documents produced by the accused. It was reasonably
found by the learned Magistrate that the claim of the
complainant that she had provided the amount after selling
her plot No.293 was incorrect. In fact, the said plot stood in
the name of her husband and her husband had transferred
the rights of the said plot to another as he was in need of
money. In the said circumstances, when the events that are
narrated by the accused prove that the complainant does
not have capacity to give an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the
accused and in the circumstances, it was found that the
cheque in question was given for the purpose of purchasing
the said plot. The basic version of the complainant as to
how she provided funds was found to be false.
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
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
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.
7. The conclusions arrived at by the learned Magistrate
cannot be said to be unreasonable or incorrect. Unless
there are compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of
the trial Court in an appeal against the acquittal, the
appellate Court in such appeals against acquittals, cannot
interfere even though a different view can be taken. In the
said circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with
the acquittal.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is
dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 13.09.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.415 OF 2009
Date: 13.09.2022
kvs
