M/S.J.D.Electronics, Rep.By ... vs P.Subhas Naidu And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4654 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1608 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The complainant/appellant aggrieved by the acquittal of

the respondent/accused vide judgment dated 08.04.2009 in

CC No.989 of 2007 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, the present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the complainant is that it is registered firm

and during the course of business transactions, delivered

electronic items on credit basis to the accused firm. In the

process of said business transactions, the accused was due an

amount of Rs.5,71,086/-. Calculating the interest as agreed,

according to the complainant, the total amount due was

Rs.6,68,155/-. Towards payment of the said outstanding, the

cheques Exs.P1, P4, P7 and P10 were given by the accused.

When presented, the said cheques were returned on different

dates for want of 'sufficient funds' on 28.05.2007 vide Exs.P2

and P3, Exs.P5 and P6 dated 02.06.2007, Exs.P8 and P9,

dated 07.06.2007 and Exs.P11 and P12 dated 09.06.2007.

Aggrieved by the return of cheques presented for clearance,

the complainant issued legal notice, whose office copy is

marked as Ex.P14. Though the notice was received by the

accused, the amount covered under the said cheques was not

paid, for which reason, the complaint was filed.

3. The complainant examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to

P19.

4. The learned Magistrate basing on the oral and

documentary evidence, found that; i) the outstanding was

Rs.5,71,086/-. However, the cheques were given for an

amount of Rs.6,68,155/- and there is no agreement of any

interest that should be paid on the said outstanding, which is

placed before the Court; ii) All the cheques, according to P.W.1

were given towards the said repayment. However, the said

cheques were in different ink and in different writings as such,

the same was not explained as to how the said different

writings on the cheques when they were issued at the same

time; iii) The cheques which were issued towards security

were in fact misused, though there was no legally enforceable

debt; iv) The amount, which is reflected in account statements

Exs.P17 to P19 did not tally with the outstanding amount;

5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that

though the amount was less than the total of the four cheques

in question, the amount was arrived at after including the

interest. The said aspect was clearly mentioned in the

complaint at the earliest point of time about interest. For the

said reason, the finding of the learned Magistrate is incorrect

and liable to be set aside.

6. The finding of the learned Magistrate is based upon the

sequence of facts narrated by the witness in the chief and

cross-examination. Admittedly, the cheques were given at one

instance to P.W.1 for repayment. In the said circumstances,

the cheques ought to have contained same writings and as to

how four different cheques contained four different writings is

not explained by P.W.1. In the normal course, if a person had

taken undertaking to make payments in installments, the said

cheques would have contained the amounts written by the

drawer of the cheque. In the said circumstances, on the facts

of the case, the finding of the learned Magistrate that the

cheques were given towards security and later filed by the

complainant without there being any corroboration for the

amount that was given by P.W.1 is probable.

7. The finding of the learned Magistrate is based upon the

evidence on record. The trial Court has the benefit of looking

at the witnesses during trial and asses. There are no

compelling reasons to interfere with the well reasoned findings

of the trial court.

8. 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.

9. Following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

dealing with cases of appeals against acquittals, I find no

grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of acquittal.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:15.09.2022 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.1608 of 2009

Dated:15.09.2022

kvs