Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2013 · The High Court · 2025

1. Smt Y.Ratna Rani, Wo. Y.Baburao, Age:43 years, Occ: Junior Assistant, Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad, Rl/o. tt/lG 240 BHEL Ramachandrapuram, Medak District. ...RespondenUAppellanUAccused

2. The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T. Shyam Sunder Murthy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Jayanthi Jayasree Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.636 of 2OL4 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Appeal is fiied by the appellant assailing the judgement dated 27.03.2014 in Crl.A No.585 of 20 13, passed b1, the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cit], Criminal Court, Nampally, Red hills, Hyderabad (for short 'the Appellate Court'), r'vherein and whereby the accused u'as lound guilty lor the offence under Section 138 ol Negotiable [nstruments Act, 188] (for short "the NI Act") by setting asicle the linding of conviction of accused imposed AS per judgment dated 15.05.20 13 in CC No.131 of 2Ol2 passed b,v the IX Spccial Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.

2. The briel facts of the case are that the due to personal acquaintance ol the complainant, accused approached her arrd took hancl loan ol Rs.75,OOO/- on O4.I2.2OO9 and Rs. 1,00,000/ on 28.12.2OO9. The totai amount borrowed from the complair-rant is Rs. 1,75,O00/- and agreed to repay the same rvithin three months with interest. But the accused did not repav the same. On repeated demands made b,v the complainant, the accused issued cheque bearing Nos.93135, dated 15.10.2O 1 1 for an amount rof l \l .- ( Rs.30,0OO/-, Cheque No.931355, dated 2i.10.2O11 for arl amount of Rs.20,O0O/-, Cheque No.699212, dated

22.1O.2O11 lor an amount of Rs.35,000/-, Cheque No.699213, dated 22.10.2011 for an amount oi Rs.35,000/- and Cheque No.93 1358, dated 22.1O.2O11 for an amount of Rs.25,O0O/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt When the cheques \ rere presented, cheque No.93 135 for an amount of Rs.3O,OOO/-, Cheque No.931355 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-, Cheque No.699212 for an amount of Rs.3S,OOO/- were dishonoured with an endorsement funds insuflicient. The accused presented the three cheques vide cheque No.699212 for Rs.35,OOO/-, cheque No.699 123 for Rs.35,O00/ and cheque No.93 1358 for an amount of Rs.25,O0O/ , but the same were also returned n'ith an endorsement lunds insufficient. Then the complainant got issued statutory notice on 29 .l2.2Ol l . The accused gave repl1, on lO.Ol.2Ol2 denying the claim made by the complainant. Therefore, the accused committed oflences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. During course of trial, the complainant PW.l herself examined as PW. 1 and got marked trxs.P1 to P11. None were examined on behalf' ol the accused, Ex.D1 and Dl(a) were marked on behalf of tl're accused.

4. Considerir-rg tl'rc evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused gr.rilt,1, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.l. Act and convicted for the said offence under Section 255 (2) ol Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo S.l for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.S,OOO/- and in default to unrlcrgo S.l lor a period of one month. In addition to that the zrccused has to pay Rs.95,OOO/- due under Ex.Pl, P3 ancl P5 (Cheques to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C). Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal uide Crl.A. No.5B5 of 20 1 3 be lore the learned appellate Court.

5. Upon hearing thc oral and documentary evidence on record, the appellatc Court has allowed the appeal reversing the judgment dated 15.03.20 13 passed by the learned trail Court in C.C.No.13l of 2012. Challenging the same, the accused filed the present crimir-ral appeal before this Court.

6. Heard Sri Shyzrm Sunder Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellernt ancl Sri Jayanthi Jayasri, learned :+ \ ..- =. -r - Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.l.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Ibarncd appellate Court, without considering the evidence available on record in proper perspective, erroneously acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section l38 ol NI Act. Therefore, she seeks to set aside thc judgmcnt impugned. B. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the learned appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly passed the impugned judgment and interference of this Court is unwarranted Therefore, she seeks to set aside the impugned judgmcnt.

9. lt is n'ell settled law that in an appea.l against acquittal, the learned appellate Court is circumscribed b.y the limitation that no interference has to be made u,ith the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not I'rave been possibly arrived at by an-y Court acting - 5 reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse. There is no embargo on the appeliate Court revieu,ing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generall_y, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered n,ith because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread n'hich runs tl-rrough the '*reb of administration of justice ir-r criminal cases is that if tvvo views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt ol the accused zrnd the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

10. The Hon'blc Apex Court in Mrinal Das a State ot Tripura held as under: "It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of pen,ersitv in the judgment and order, interfercnce by this Court ercrcising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not rvarranted. However, if the appeal is heard by al appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence alcl take its own decision. In ottrer words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and thc appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for prcsumptir>n in ftt our of the accused. The (r \ o presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. [[ two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidcnce on record, the appellatc court should not disturb thc hndings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which thc order o[ acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion' The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by thc trial Court with respect to both facts aud l:ru'. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal prcfcrrecl by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record d only l:y giving cogcnt and adequate reasons set asidc e judgment ol acrlr:itta1. AIr order of acquittal is to be rfercd with only when there are "compelling a-nd bstanti:rl reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly pable". it is a compelling reason for interfcrence. thc trial Court has ignored the cvidence or misread inaterial evidcncc or has ignored material documents dying dcclaration / report of ballistic experts etc., the llate court is competcnt to reverse the decision of the Court dcpcncling on lhe materials placed." Maloth Somaraju u State of Andhra Prq.desh t!;Le held as ur'rder: can be n() two opiniol-ts that mcrcly because thc ittal is found to bc wrong and another view can bc , thc judgmcnt o[ acquittal cannot be upset. The ate Court has more and serious responsibility while u.ith thc judgment of acquittal and unless the - 1 acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to cxamine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care".

12. In view of the Judgments referred to above and for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and the sarne is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 27.O3.2O14 in Crl.A.No.5B5 of 2013 on the file ol the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if aly, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. V. KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, H erabad (with records, if any)

2. The lX Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at s Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri T. Shyam Sunder Mu(hy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Jayanthi Jayasree, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Kam,/sa HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 IHE S ( 0 5 'i8 /rll rJ * I ) t, JUDGMENT CRLA.No.636 of 2014 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL n +