A. In Ravi llharma v. State

2. The State of Telangana' Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at HYderabad . ...ResPondent / ResPondent Counsel. for the APPellant Sri J Kanakaiah Counsel for the ResPondent No 1 Sri Vempati Mallikarjun ShastrY Counsel for the ResPondent No 2 Sri M Vivekananda ReddY Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : I I I I ,l -ftii -'"a & 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER _a RIMINAL APPEAL No. 393 OF 2018 JUDGMEN]': The a rpellant is the complainant who filed complaint under Section 1!i8 of r-he Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the cheque issr-red by the respondent No. 1/accused ro discharge Rs.1,SO,OC)C/ , ',vhich was earlier obtained as a 1oan, \ ,as returned unpaid, on l)resentation to the bank.

2. Notice rl.as issued, and since the accused faik:d to make good the parrne:rt covered by the cheque, complaint u.as fi1ed.

3. The k arlled Magistrate, considered the evidenr:e of pW. l_ complainant, documents, and marked as Exs.p1 to p6 on his behaif. The resl>ondent/ accused entered into the box, examined himself as D W. [, and marked Exs.D 1 to D I 1.

4. The de'ence of the accused is that he was workin5l under the father of the cornplainant. For his fam y necessitres, he used to borrow sma ll amounts. The question of taking a loan of Rs. 1,50,O007 -, vzhen he is a daily wage laborer, does not arise. Further, d'c umt:nts Exs. D 1 to D 1 1 were filed. The cheque in question wa ; subsequent to the earlier cheques, u hich were already errcas,hec by the Bank, i3z€riatum . ! i;.1. 2

5. The learned Magistrate found that: i) The appellant failed to make out that he had lent ttre amount to the accused. ii) The accused was working under the father of the complainant and the question of giving such huge amount does not arise. iii) The document Ex.P6 was fabricated, since contents of Ex.P6 were filled up in English; however, the accused is an illiterate and could not read and write in English :'

6. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of complainant would submit that the accused failed to give reply to the notice sent by the complainant. The said aspect has to be considered. Further, keeping aside Ex.P6-Promissory Note, the other documents ought to have been looked into by the learned Magistrate, which make out a case against the accused. 7 . The finding of the learned Magistrate, in the facts of the case, that no amount was advanced by the complainant, cannot be found fault with. The accused had entered into the witness box and filed documents trxs.Dl to D11, to show that the events as spoken by the complainant did not happen, and a false case was 3 A. In Ravi llharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhif and anothcrr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rvhile dealing with an a tpe:i{ against acquittal, the appellate cr)urt has to consider r.l het-her the trial Court's view cal be t,lrmed as a possible ot re, particularly when eyidence on recorl has been analysed. The t'eason is that an order of acquittal adrls up to the presumptt o T o ' innocence in favour of the accusecl . Thus, the appeilate c(,urt has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial cor rt r:ndering acquittal.

9. In Ghurey Lal a. State of (Ittar Prad.esh,rr the Hon,ble Supreme C<,urt. aJter rgferring to several Judgments rr:garding the settled prin cipl :s of law and the powers of appella te Court in reversing th: orler of acquittal, held at para TO, as folltws: "',7(. Irt the light of the aboue, the High Court and other appellot z rloutls should follout the well-settlerl p,rinciples crystaili-;ed cg number of Judgments if it is goinq to ot,errule or othent'i: e rii.;turb the trial courl's acquittal: 1 . ','he appellate court mag onlg ouer-ntle or cthenuise dishrlt the t.ial court's acquittal if it has .uery substanttial and- compelli tg rtasons" for doing so. A numLer of instances arise in uhich the appellrte court u-tould I',aue *uery substantial and compelling rea:;ons" to discarcl the tial court's decision. .Very sibstantiol and compellit tg re asons" exist uhen: i) 'L'he tial court's conclusion uith regard_ to th.e facts is ii) TLrc trial court's decision u)as based on erl etroneotts palpablg Lurcng: uieuL oJ' l,ttLt; I I ' (2022) 8 Supren e Corrrt Cases 536 ' (2008) l0 supre ne (:(,urt cases 450 1, - 1.. -.ti.. 4 ,rl. iii)Tlrc tial court's judgment i-s likelg to result in ograue miscarriage of Jltstice" ; iu)The entire approach of the tnal court in dealing LDith the euidence utas patently illegal; u) The trial court's judgment uds manifestly unjust and unreasonable; ui)The trial court has ignored the euidence or misread the mateial euidence or has ignored material doanments like dgirlg declarations/ report of the ballistic Ex.Pert, etc. Thi.s list is intended to be illustratiue, not uii) exhaustiue.

2. The appellate court must alu.tays giue proper ueight and consideration o the findings of the tial court.

3. If tu.to reasonable uieuts can be reached one that leads to acquitta[ the other to conuiction _the High Courts/ appellate courts must tule in fauour of the acansed."

10. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate, while acquitting the accused are based on record and reasonable. Not replying to the notice, in the present facts of the case, has no adverse impact on the defence by the accused. There are no grolrrids and compelling reasons to reverse the well reasoned Judgment of the trial Court 1l . Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. SRINIVAS P TY REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Vl Special lt/agistrate, Hyderabad (with records, if any) 2. fwo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri J Kanakaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Vempati Mallikarjun Shastry, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies ,:w HIGH COURT DATED:19t'02i2025 7 *:" -'j JUDGMEN T CRLA.No.393 of 2018 .-:': irT Ih cY 14 .J o 0 PA1 fl 20fr (\' ci-"r .AI 6'. ( z o \\ l,l * CTAPo c() l DISMISSING]'HE CRLA ,.r{ l .4,