Telangana High Court
M. Prabhakar Reddy, Kazipet, Warangal ... vs T. Sukhender Reddy, Hyderabad, And Anr. on 25 September, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.69 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
The appellant/complainant is questioning the order of the
learned Magistrate acquitting the accused.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant
and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that both the
complainant and the accused are closely related. In the course
of real estate business, in which both were involved, it was
found outstanding of Rs.95,00,000/- which was agreed to be
paid by the accused to the complainant. Having settled their
issues, a cheque for Rs.90,00,000/- was given on 04.10.2003.
The said cheque when presented for clearance was returned
unpaid on the ground of 'insufficient funds'. Notice was issued
and the same was returned unclaimed. Aggrieved by the fact
that the amount covered by the cheque was not paid though
notice was sent, complaint was filed.
4. During the course of trial, learned Magistrate examined
the complainant as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2.
Exs.P.1 to P.6 are also marked which are cheque, memo,
acknowledgment with postal return cover, copy of legal notice,
postal receipt and letter executed by the accused.
5. In support of the defense, the accused marked Ex.D.1
which is Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated
15.12.2005. The said MOU/Ex.D.1 was executed in between
the accused and the complainant. In the said document which
was not disputed by the complainant, it is specifically
mentioned that the case was filed for dishonor of cheque of
Rs.90,00,000/-. However, keeping in view their relation it was
decided that the accounts would be reconciliated and payment
would be made. It is specifically mentioned in MOU that there
was blank cheque which was issued, on the basis of which the
complaint in C.C. was filed. On the basis of said MOU, learned
Magistrate found that since the complainant failed to prove the
factum of any legally enforceable debt on the cheque, dismissed
the complaint and acquitted the accused.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant
would submit that though MOU was not disputed, however, the
learned Magistrate committed an error in dismissing the
complaint when MOU was nearly 2 years after launching of
prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. The accused also did not file any proof making any kind of
payment to the complainant. In the said circumstances, only
on the basis of MOU which was at the subsequent date, it
cannot be inferred that as on date of the cheque, there was no
outstanding.
7. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the accused would submit that learned Magistrate has rightly
discussed Ex.D.1 and acquitted the accused. It is not disputed
that there were real estate business dealings between the
complainant and the accused and in the course of said
dealings, a blank cheque was issued which was subjected to
prosecution by the complainant.
8. 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.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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:
"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."
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
10. Having gone through the evidence placed on record by the
complainant and the accused, it has to be decided whether the
complainant was in a position to prove that there was
outstanding under Ex.P.1/cheque. Once the contents of
MOU/Ex.D.1 are admitted, the version of the complainant that
there was outstanding of Rs.90,00,000/- cannot be accepted. It
is specifically mentioned that the cheque was issued blank and
the accounts will be reconciliated, thereafter, amount will be
paid. In view of the said understanding between the parties,
the question of their being legally enforceable debt as against
Ex.P.1 does not arise.
11. There are no grounds to interfere with well reasoned order
of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is
dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 25.09.2024
dv
