Telangana High Court
S.Anil Kumar vs K.Srinivas on 24 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.332 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Complainant aggrieved
by the order of acquittal recorded by the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (FAC), Hyderabad in C.C.No.1489 of 2006, dated
7.12.2010, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly, the case of the appellant/complainant is that he
was acquainted with the accused and on his request he has lent
an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the accused on 02.01.2006 and
towards repayment of the said amount a cheque for an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-was given. The said cheque was presented on
06.03.2006 for clearance, but it was returned for the reason of
insufficient funds. Legal notice was issued to the accused asking
him to pay the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of
the receipt of the notice. However, since the accused failed to pay
the amount covered by the cheque, though he received notice,
criminal complaint was filed.
4. The complainant examined himself as PW1. The accused
entered into witness box and examined himself as DW1. On
behalf of the complainant Exs.P1 to P6 were marked and Exs.D1
and D2 were marked on behalf of accused.
5. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused on the following grounds.
i) PW1 in his complaint stated that Rs.70,000/- was given
towards loan, however, he stated in the chief affidavit which is
contrary to the complaint that Rs.1,50,000/- was given as loan.
ii) if an amount of Rs.70,000/- was given as hand loan, it is not
substantiated by the accused as to how an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- would be outstanding within a period of two
months.
iii) under Exs.D1 and D2-pronotes filed, reflects that son of the
complainant namely Satyanarayana had advanced the loan to the
accused and not the complainant.
iv) The contents of the pro-note is discrepant to the advancing of
the loan.
6. Learned Magistrate found that in view of the said
discrepancies, the initial burden was on the complainant to prove
the outstanding was not discharged.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that in fact there was a typographical error in the complaint that
the amount was Rs.70,000/-. In the pro-note Ex.D1 and D2-
receipts, it was written that Satyanarayana's son Anil Kumar had
given the loan, however, the Court found that it was
Satyanarayana who had given the loan which is contrary to the
document.
8. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
9. 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:
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
"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;
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."
10. Having gone through the record, the findings of the learned
Magistrate cannot be found fault with. Though it is urged that
Rs.70,000/- was a typographical error, the same ought to have
been identified and rectified by the complainant at the very
inception itself and explained as to the discrepancy that had
crept into the complaint. However, no such attempt was made.
Further, in the pro-note it appears that it was Satyanarayana
who advanced the loan.
11. In the said circumstances, since there are no compelling
reasons to reverse the order of acquittal, this Court is not
inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant.
12. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.06.2024
tk
