Krishna Corporation, Rep.By ... vs M/S.Madina Metal Industries ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4703 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1265 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellants/complainants

aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the II Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.465 of 2003, dated

09.04.2009, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The case of the complainant/appellant is that he had given an

amount of Rs.13 lakhs to the accused to meet the financial

requirements of the accused. To repay the said outstanding amount,

two cheques (Exs.P1 and P2) in question were issued by the accused.

When the said cheques were presented for clearance, they were

returned unpaid. Aggrieved by the return of the cheques, legal notice

was sent, copy of which is Ex.P4. Since the accused failed to repay the

amount after issuance of notice, complaint was filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the civil Court

has found that there is liability and the respondents/accused are

liable to pay the amount. Since the signatures on the cheques are not

disputed, it has to be presumed that the cheques were issued for valid

consideration. Learned Counsel further submits that there is ample

documentary evidence to show that the amounts were taken by the

accused and to clear the said outstanding, the cheques in question

were given by the respondents/accused. The reasons given for

acquitting the respondents/accused by the Court below are totally

untenable and not based on the evidence placed on record both oral

and documentary.

4. The learned Magistrate examined PW1 on behalf of complainant

and marked Exs.P1 to P19. In defence, the 2nd respondent-accused

No.2 was examined himself as DW1 and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked.

5. Learned Magistrate after conclusion of trial found that the

cheques Exs.P1 and P2 were given towards security in the transaction.

Ex.D5 is the Certified Copy of the Receipt which was filed by the

accused alleged to have been executed for Rs.13 lakhs. The said

receipt was sent to scientific expert who gave an opinion that the

receipt in fact was for Rs.3 lakhs and that the numerical '1' was added

subsequently before the numeric '3'. Learned Magistrate also found

that the document clearly shows that there were interpolations in the

receipt and disbelieved that the complainant had extended an amount

of Rs.13 lakhs. Further, the complainant/appellant had deliberately

suppressed the said receipt. The said receipt was not disputed by the

complainant and on account of interpolations in the said receipt, the

Court had come to a conclusion that there was no legally enforceable

debt of Rs.13 ½ lakhs which was covered by Exs.P1 and P2. The

findings of the learned Magistrate are on the basis of the fabricated

receipt.

6. The claim of the complainant is that he has advanced an amount

of Rs.13 ½ lakhs for which receipt was issued. However, the receipt

was marked in defence as Ex.D5 and the Court had sent the said

receipt to an expert's opinion and it was found that the numerical '1'

was interpolated.

7. Learned counsel for appellant argued that since the Civil Court

has found that the accused are liable, the said finding of the Civil

Court is binding on the Criminal Court and to draw an inference of

outstanding. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the

findings of the Civil Court are in fact not binding on a Criminal Court.

However, the present case is against the orders of acquittal. In the said

circumstances, the Court found that there was no outstanding and

accordingly acquitted the respondents.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 implication.

But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.

9. The present appeal is decided keeping in view the parameters

prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of acquittal. The

finding in the present appeal is confined to the proceedings in the form

of appeal against acquittal before this Court.

10. In view of the above I find no infirmity in the said finding which

is based on the evidence both oral and documentary produced before

the Court. Unless there are glaring inconsistencies in the findings or

the findings are contrary to the evidence on record, the appellate Court

(2013) 11 SCC 688

in an appeal against acquittal can interfere with the said order. I find

no grounds to interfere with the order of the acquittal.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J

Date: 16.09.2022 tk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1265 OF 2009

Dated: 16.09.2022

tk