Mr.M.Ramesh vs P.Rajagopal And One Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4845 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1607 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant/complainant aggrieved by the acquittal of the

respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, which acquittal was recorded by I Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.Appeal No.350 of 2008

by reversing the judgment of X Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Secunderabad, filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be

referred to as arrayed in the trial court. The case of the complainant

is that Rs.1.00 lakh was borrowed by the accused from the

complainant and promised to repay the said amount with interest

at the rate of 36% per annum. However, the accused failed to pay

the said amount for considerable time and thereafter, issued

cheques in question, which are Exs.P4 to P6. Corresponding

promissory notes were also executed, which are Exs.P1 to P3. The

learned Magistrate having found that the loan was proved and that

there was legally enforceable debt on the cheques which were given,

convicted the accused for the said offence. However, the learned

Sessions Judge, in appeal, reversed the finding of conviction on the

ground that P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the

cheques Exs.P4 to P6 along with promotes Exs.P1 to P3 were

written by the complainant. If the writings in promotes and cheques

were written by the complainant, his claim that on persistent

demand, the accused issued cheques, could not be accepted.

3. P.W.2, who is a common friend of the accused and the

complainant, stated that in the year 2004, he has gone to the Bank

of the accused and that the complainant had shown him the

pronotes and cheques, as such, the version of complainant that the

cheques were issued in July, 2005 could not be believed. P.W.1

admitted in his cross-examination that the accused has paid more

than the amount which was due. On the basis of admission by

P.W.1, the learned Sessions Judge found that the complainant has

received the entire amount and the cheques Exs.P4 to P6 were

issued towards collateral security at the time of giving loan.

4. Perused the record. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge

are based upon the admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the amount

due was already paid and the cheques in question were taken as a

security in the year 2004 itself. The said finding of the learned

Sessions Judge is based upon admission of P.Ws.1 and 2. In the

said circumstances, I find no reasons to interfere with the well

reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

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 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. The appellant has not made out any grounds to suggest that

the finding of the learned Sessions Judge are unreasonable or that

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

they are not based on record. I do not find any grounds to interfere

with the judgment of acquittal.

7. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.09.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1607 of 2009

Date: 22.09.2022.

kvs