Telangana High Court
B. Madhu Sudan Reddy, Hyderabad. vs M/. Devender Reddy, Hyderabad, And Anr. on 18 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2218 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the complainant
aggrieved by the reversing judgment of the Sessions Court. The
trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, however, the said
finding was reversed in the appeal by the Sessions Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/complainant and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that hand loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- was taken by the accused and agreed to repay
the same within the stipulated time. However, towards
repayment, cheque in question was issued on 10.04.2004. The
said cheque when presented for clearance was returned unpaid
by the bank. Notice was issued and on failure by the accused
to pay the amount covered under the cheque, a complaint was
filed before the trial Court. Learned Magistrate convicted the
accused.
4. However, in appeal, learned Sessions Judge found that
the initial burden on the complainant was not discharged to
show that cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt.
Though Ex.P.8 returns were filed, it did not reflect that there
was any hand loan paid. However, Ex.P.7, which is statement
of affairs pertaining to the year 2001-2002/computation was
filed, it was not proved by the complainant that the very same
Ex.P.7 was filed with the Income Tax authorities. On the said
basis, since initial onus on the complainant was not discharged
and the defence is probable that the cheque was issued for a
settlement and not towards outstanding, learned Sessions
Judge acquitted the accused.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would submit that once the Court finds that cheque was not
issued towards any settlement as claimed, the question of
acquitting the accused does not arise. In fact, the burden
which is shifted on to the accused was not discharged.
6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi
Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 1, held that while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when
evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an
order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be
relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering
acquittal.
7. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding
the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court
in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other
appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles
crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or
otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise
disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial
and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court
would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard
the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling
reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is
palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view
of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave
miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the
evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying
declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and
consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads
to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate
courts must rule in favour of the accused."
8. However, under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C., an order of
acquittal cannot be reversed and this Court is prohibited from
convicting the accused. No grounds are made out to remand
the case back to the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands
dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 18.07.2024
dv
