Telangana High Court
Kommula Karuna, Dharmaram V, Warangal ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 8 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1177 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant
questioning the judgment dated 31.08.2009 passed by III
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in
Calendar Case No.794 of 1999. By the impugned
Judgment, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant/complainant, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/accused and learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.
The parties will be referred to as in the trial Court.
3. The complainant, who is the house wife, lodged a
complaint stating that the cheque given by the accused to
her towards repayment of the outstanding amount of
Rs.3,12,000/- was dishonoured. The cheque was issued in
view of the legal dispute in between them. The said cheque
has presented for clearance was returned unpaid on the
ground of "insufficient funds".
4. The complainant examined herself as PW.1. In her
support, she filed Exs.P-1 to P-10 to substantiate about
the loan given to the accused. The accused examined
himself as DW.1. In his evidence he stated the entire
amounts were repaid and marked Exs.D1 to D6. Civil
proceedings were also pending before the II Additional
Assistant Senior Civil Judge, Warangal vide O.S.No.359 of
2002.
5. Learned Magistrate found that though PW.1
entered into the box, she was unaware about the cheque,
which was Ex.P-2. Further, the Court found that the
writings on the cheque were not that of the accused.
6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
and another1, 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
analyzed. 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.
7. 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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
8. Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the
evidence of DW.1 and the documents filed along with it
found favour with the repayment of entire amount. In
cases of acquittal, unless there are compelling reasons to
interfere with the orders of acquittal, the appellate Court
cannot reverse the finding of acquittal. The repayment of
loan is borne by record.
9. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with
the findings of the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting
the accused.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 08.01.2025
mmr
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1177 OF 2011
08.01.2025
mmr
