Telangana High Court
M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, vs Anindya Roy, on 3 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.424 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
The appellant/complainant is questioning the orders of the
learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the 1st respondent/accused, for
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Learned Magistrate convicted the 1st respondent
herein/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that
the complaint was filed beyond 45 days, which is the prescribed
limit. The endorsement on the notice was on 24.05.2011, stating
that the addressee had left. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on
the 47th day. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the Judgment of
this Court in M.G.Brothers Automobiles Ltd. rep. by its General
Manager v. B.Masthan Reddy and another 1 , and other
Judgments, and held that the person who represents the Company
or institutes the criminal proceedings on behalf of the company must
have that power conferred by the Board of Directors or as required in
a given case. According to Ex.P4-resolution, one Jaya Prakash
Benerjee, Assistant Manager, Hyderabad, was designated to file the
complaint on behalf of the complainant Bank, but it was filed by one
2006(1) ALT (Crl.) 331 (A.P.)
Sudhakar Kalvakollu, who did not have any authorization from the
Company. For the said reasons, the learned Sessions Judge passed
the order of acquittal.
3. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 2, 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 the 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.
4. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 3 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.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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 Ex.Pert, 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."
5. In case of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act being filed by a representative, unless there is
express consent and authorization by the company, the question of
prosecuting the complaint by a person who is not authorized does
not arise. Further, the complaint was filed after 47 days, which is
beyond the period of limitation. Both grounds were considered by the
learned Sessions Judge.
6. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned
Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.03.2025
tk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.424 OF 2025
Date: 24.03.2025
tk
