Veerapally Venkata Laxmi, vs Thota Sampath Kumar And Another,
2024 Latest Caselaw 2931 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2931 Tel
Judgement Date : 30 July, 2024

Telangana High Court

Veerapally Venkata Laxmi, vs Thota Sampath Kumar And Another, on 30 July, 2024

                                1




     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
      CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.583 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the

petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated

13.11.2009 in C.C.No.250 of 2008, on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class (Special Mobile Court) at Nalgonda,

acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and

the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent-State.

3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner/complainant is that

the accused approached her on 11.08.2007 for advancing

an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. The said amount was given

and the accused agreed to repay the amount within 15 days.

Since the complainant was having close acquaintance with

the accused, no documents were sought to be executed.

Two weeks thereafter, when the complainant asked to repay

the said amount, Rs.60,000/- was paid. For remaining

amount, cheque/Ex.P.1 was issued. The said cheque when

presented for clearance, returned un-served with an

endorsement 'account closed'. After intimation from the

bank, notice was issued to the accused by registered post

and the said notice was served and accordingly, the

complaint was filed, since the amount covered by the

cheque was not paid.

4. Learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the

following grounds:-

1. P.W.1 stated that she knows the accused through her husband. However, she did give the details of the properties of the accused.

2. P.W.1 had lend the amount without knowing the financial capacity of the accused, there is no possibility in such circumstances.

3. No documents like promissory note were executed when the amount was given.

4. The specific defence of the accused was that blank cheque was given to P.W.2, however, the said cheque was misused by handing it over to the complainant.

5. Admittedly, the signatures on Ex.P.6/postal acknowledgment was not signed by the same person, as such, service of notice is doubtful.

6. The cheque was deposited four months after it was allegedly issued, which again creates any amount of doubt.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner

would submit that burden is on the accused to show as to

how the cheque was in possession of the complainant.

When the signature on the cheque is that of the accused,

the complainant had discharged her burden. Further, the

Court cannot come to a conclusion regarding service of

notice by comparing signature on acknowledgment card and

the cheque. Counsel finally argued that not taking

promissory note, it cannot be said that the transaction did

not take place. It was clearly explained since accused was

well known to the husband of the complainant, the amount

was provided.

6. Having gone through the record, the reasons given by

the learned Magistrate are on the basis of record and

probable.

7. 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 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.

8. 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:

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

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;

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."

9. As argued by the learned counsel that there was no

explanation regarding cheque being in possession of P.W.1

is incorrect. It is the case of the accused that cheque was

issued to P.W.2 who has misused the said cheque and

handed it over to the complainant for filing a complaint.

P.W.2 is also friend of husband of the complainant. When

the accused is acquainted with the husband of the

complainant, there is no reason why the husband of the

complainant was not examined. It is clear from the cross-

examination of P.W.1 that she did not have the details of

properties of the accused nor was in a position to give any

personal details. The doubt expressed by the Court below