Telangana High Court
G.Chinna Reddy, Mahabubnagar., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp., And Anr., on 24 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.601 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This criminal appeal is filed by appellant/complainant
aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.02.2013 in C.C.No.92 of
2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mahabubnagar, wherein respondentNo.2/accused was
acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.1/State and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the appellant/complainant is that an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was lent to the accused. The
accused issued cheque in question for Rs.5,07,000/- to
complainant on 16.10.2010. The said cheque was presented
for clearance and was returned unpaid; as such notice was
issued to the accused by the complainant. Since the accused
failed to pay the amount covered by the cheque, even after
receiving notice, the complaint was filed.
4. During the course of examination, the complainant
examined himself as PW1 and another witness was also
examined as PW2 on his behalf. The accused examined
himself as DW1 and DW2, who is a friend of accused, was
also examined.
5. Learned Magistrate, on the basis of the defense
documents Exs.D1 to D9, found that blank cheques were
handed over to the accused and Ex.P1 is one of the cheque.
The reason for handing over the blank cheque to the
complainant is that the complainant was working as
supervisor under the accused for monthly salary of
Rs.6,000/- and was dealing with all the financial transaction
of the contract related to the railways.
6. The trial Court further found that the complainant was
an employee under the accused and he does not have the
financial capacity to lend such amount. In fact, the blank
cheques, which were given by accused to the complainant
during the contract, were misused by the complainant.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
complainant would submit that even assuming that the
complainant was working under the accused that does not
mean that the complainant does not have financial capacity
to lend the amount.
8. In cases of acquittal, the interference by the appellate
Court can only be in compelling circumstances. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Babu v. State of Kerala 1 held as follows:
"12. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh
[(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Court again examined the
earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that
an "order of acquittal should not be lightly
interfered with even if the court believes that there
is some evidence pointing out the finger towards
the accused."
13. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias
Baijnath & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 271], this Court gave
certain illustrative circumstances in which the
Court would be justified in interfering with a
judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The
circumstances includes:
i) The High Court's decision is based on totally
erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal
position;
ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to
evidence and documents on record;
iii) The entire approach of the High Court in
dealing with the evidence was patently illegal
leading to grave miscarriage of justice;
iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly
unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law
and facts on the record of the case;
Crl.A.No.104/09, dated 11.08.2010
v) This Court must always give proper weight
and consideration to the findings of the High Court;
vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in
interfering with a case when both the Sessions
Court and the High Court have recorded an order of
acquittal."
9. It is admitted that the complainant worked under the
accused for a salary of Rs.6,000/-, he has not shown any
resources through which he could lend the amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused. In fact, by supporting evidence
and documents, the accused was in a position to establish
before the trial Court that the cheque in question was given
as blank in the contract related to the railways and the same
was misused.
10. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
appellate Courts, in cases of acquittal, have to be cautious
and only when there are compelling circumstances, the
appellate Court can interfere in case of acquittal.
11. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well
reasoned judgment of the trial Court's finding that the
complainant does not have financial capacity to lend the
amount. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with
the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court and the appeal
fails.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.09.2024
Kgk/Krr
