Telangana High Court
Balina Rama Rao vs The State Of A.P. And Another on 21 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.918 OF 2012
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 09.05.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2011 on
the file of the learned Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad (for short,
"the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated
07.12.2011 in C.C.No.257 of 2009 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Nizamabad (for
short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. D. Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/complainant
and respondent No.2/accused were known to each other. Out of
such acquaintance, the complainant advanced a hand loan
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the presence of witnesses namely
Ravula Srinivas and P. Prabhakar Rao. Pursuant thereto, the
accused executed four separate promissory notes for Rs.50,000/-
each, in favour of the complainant, agreeing to repay the same
along with interest. On repeated demands, the accused issued
post dated cheque bearing No.619095 drawn on State Bank of
Hyderabad, Vinayaknagar Branch, Nizamabad for an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment of the hand loan amount
with interest. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured
for the reason "funds insufficient".
4. On intimation about the said dishonour, the accused
requested the complainant to present the same after a month and
assured that he would maintain sufficient amounts in his
account to honour the cheque. Upon such a request, the accused
presented the said cheque once again after some time. But the
said cheque was again returned as "account closed". The
complainant issued legal notice to the accused calling upon him
to pay the cheque amount within stipulated time. But the
accused failed repay the amount due. Hence, the accused was
alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act").
5. The trial Court vide judgment dated 07.12.2011 in
C.C.No.257 of 2009 found the accused guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved
thereby, the accused preferred an appeal.
6. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.05.2012 in
Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2011 set aside the judgment passed by
the trial Court and acquitted the accused for the alleged offence.
Assailing the same, the present Appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on
record in proper perspective and erred in acquitting respondent
No.2 for the alleged offence. He relied upon the decisions passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex and another Vs.
P. Balasubramanian 1, Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar 2 and
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Prabodh Kumar Tewari 3 and
sought to set aside the impugned judgment.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the
appellate Court after careful scrutiny of the oral and
documentary evidence rightly passed the impugned judgment
and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he
seeks to dismiss the appeal.
(2021) 5 Supreme Court Cases 283
(2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 197
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1089
9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the defence,
DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.
Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court observed that as per the evidence of the accused, the
bank officials closed his account acting upon the complaint of the
accused that he lost his cheque book containing blank signed
cheques and unsigned cheques. But no such copy of complaint
was produced by him before the Court to substantiate his
contention. Hence, relying upon the decision passed by the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G. Venkata Ramaiah
Vs. Cillakolu Venkateshwarlu 4 wherein it was held that when
the cheque was returned by the banker due to closure of account,
it would mean that there are insufficient funds in the account of
the drawer and an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI
Act would be attributable to the accused, the trial Court found
the accused guilty of the alleged offence and thereby convicted
him vide judgment cited supra.
10. Upon an appeal being preferred, the appellate Court found
that it was the specific plea of the complainant that Ex P1 cheque
was allegedly issued in discharge of the legally enforceable debt
2000-JIC-1-365
under four promissory notes executed by him. But it was clear
from Ex D2 that the alleged four promissory notes were not
executed by the accused himself and the suit filed by the
complainant herein seeking recovery of amount of Rs.3,43,342/-
was dismissed on 02.06.2011 vide O.S.No.202 of 2006 on the file
of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad after adjudication
at length. Therefore, upon taking into consideration the fact that
the judgment dated 02.06.2011 in O.S.No.202 of 2006 passed by
the competent civil Court has binding effect on the criminal
proceedings, the appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal
reversing the findings given by the trial Court.
11. In the present case on hand, the appellate Court held that
the accused was not guilty of the offence under Section.138 of NI
Act, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for
interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section
397 Cr.P.C.
12. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere
with the well considered judgment of the appellate Court and
accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 21.02.2024
ESP
