C.Narayana Rao, vs Dr.K.V.Ramana Rao,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4657 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.252 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant/complainant is questioning the

correctness of the judgment in CC No.1544 of 1997 dated

28.06.2007 passed by the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Secunderabad acquitting the

respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The case of the complainant is that the respondent was

running a hospital and the complainant gave an amount of

Rs.1.00 lakh as hand loan on 06.05.1997 and Ex.P1 receipt

was executed. Towards repayment of the said hand loan, a

post dated cheque Ex.P2 was issued by the accused. The said

cheque when presented for clearance, was returned vide Ex.P3

return memo dated 20.06.1997 with an endorsement 'account

closed'. A copy of legal notice Ex.P4 was sent to the accused

on 03.07.1997. Reply notice Ex.P5 was sent on 29.07.1997.

Since the accused failed to make good the amount covered by

the cheque, complainant filed private compliant under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Learned Magistrate having examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and

marking Exs.P1 to P7 on behalf of the complainant and also

examined D.W.1-accused and D.W.2 who is the wife of the

accused and marked Exs.D1 to D9.

4. The learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of

the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, for the following

reasons; i) There was no legally enforceable debt subsisting

between the parties and Ex.P2 cheque was not issued in

discharge of any debt; ii) The receipt Ex.P1 is doubtful

document as it is not in the handwriting of the accused, who

is a Doctor and it was filled up by a third person; iii) The

writings in the cheque were also not written by one person; iv)

two cases are filed against the accused herein one by the

complainant and the other, who is complainant in CC No.1559

of 1997, (which is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal

No.607 of 2009) both are filed at the instance of Ch.Devender ;

v). D.W.2, who is the wife of the accused filed complaint

against said Ch.Devender on 02.05.1997 stating that said

Ch.Devender and his associates have demanded Rs.15.00

lakhs and also have taken signed blank cheques and other

documents, which was registered as FIR in Cr.No.381 of 1997;

vi) The complainant in the present case filed O.S.No.1353 of

1995 claiming himself to be proprietor of Nagarjuna Health

Care Centre against Dr.P.V.Sudhakar Raju, who is partner of

the accused herein, which was dismissed; vii) There are

several disputes in between the accused, his partner and the

said Devender and complainant herein. In the background of

the said disputes, the question of giving loan when such

disputes were pending is not at all probable and possible.

5. As seen from the record, both oral and documentary,

there are strained relations in between the accused and the

said Devender, appellant in Crl.A.No.607 of 2009. The

complainant in the present case also filed a suit against

partner of the accused, which was dismissed. There are

strained relations between the parties relating to filing of police

complaint, as such, the question of accused approaching the

complainant and taking loan when such disputes were

pending, cannot be believed.

6. The accused has entered into the witness box and

examined himself as D.W.1 and marked certified copies of the

complaints Exs.D1 dated 02.05.1997 and D2 dated

10.07.1997. The certified copies of the interim injunction and

also dismissal copy in OS NO.1353 of 1995 are filed. The

complaint that cheques were forcibly taken and also some

documents on 02.05.1997, was filed.

7. In the said circumstances, the question of giving loan on

06.05.1997 and the cheque dated 18.06.1997 becomes

doubtful. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate cannot

be interfered with as they are borne out by record and

probable. There are no compelling circumstances to interfere

with the order and well reasoned judgment 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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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

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.252 of 2009

Dated:15.09.2022

kvs