The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep' by Public Prosecutor' High Court Buildings' Hyderabad ...RESPoNDENT/CoMPLAINANT K. Paul, S/o K. Surender Rao, aged about 48 years'.occ - Private Service, 'aii7e-aiot+t, nsoestors 6iJny-' street t'to z' Kukatpally' Hyderabad' ,..RESPONDENT'DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT IANo: 1 0F 20',19 Petition under Section 482 CPC praying.thai in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support""t-t'I" i"titi,I^, it""Hign Court maY be pleased may be oreased to suspend th" s";iJ;:J;"""ir'it cii'q N.o'634 oi zou' on the file of ine soecial Judse for T'i"l';;Zi;'i;;'"i"' s'ct And S'Ts (PoA) Actcum- Vl Addl.Metropolitan Sessions j;g;' ;;;'fu"rabad'-which was con{irmed the order passed in cc No. 541 "f"ili;: o-n tn" tir" ot tu xttr Special Magistrate' Hyderabad. IANO:1OF 2024 Between: K. Paul, S/o K. Surender R: e2 0/a i,' A. i". t# iii,",l il 3?;1,yi,.":l",ll f:,J:i,ll i.,?l! ; [lJ, AND ...PET|TIoNER/RESPoNDENTS/COMPLAINANT te, j e rvi ce, N o 4 42 _ 1 M. Naresh. Siro. Laxmana chary, Aged about 32 years, Occ _ private Service. R/o H No 4_4i,-40s. Asbestors c"r.i_',v, dG"i ,".rr]fl;*r,rr,ry, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 The State of 'telangana, Hyderabad. Re p. by Public Prosecutor, High court Buildings, ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT . Petition unde - Section 147 of Negotiable instr ffi :,::i Y;ffi;XX,i:.J !r",oi%[i:o:"ounv-,."u,"iin';b'iie jii:!iln3,;t;ffi ;,il;t""j::%t;ti:r:,a:iilfr ]l-.ff;i?51;: Petitioner tc' compound the il!fi :fr:..,ffi *it$,f;lili,fl r'ti.,,::i'f?{$liij,ffi IA NO:20F 2024 petition under Sectron .147 of Negotiable instrr ctrcumstances stated i1 - iliil"T,:i".x,,"j,,*r,*i,9,"9ry;*:s"t,*fl f [:'Js]ff,fi,,t:":Jffi jd; Counset for the petitioner: SRI GUDI SATYANARAYANA cou nse r ror th e Res p'r n o",, *.fiS,: Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. PADMAJA KATTUNGA The Court made the fo,llowing: ORDER ri^,.flfullir pRos Ec uro R THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'VENUC'OPAL .205 ()F 2OL9 NAL REVIsroN CASENo ORDER: ' The Present cnmrn al revision case is frled by the petitioner/ accused under Sections 397 and 4O1 of Cr'P'C' aggrieved by the judgment dated22'11'2O18 in Criminal Appeal No'630 of 2Ol4 on thefileofthelearnedSpecialJudgeforTrialofoffencesunder SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad' wherein and where under the judgment dated 22.05.2014 in CC No'541 ol 2Ol3 on the frle of the leained XI Special Magistrate at Hyderabad hnding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs 2'5O'OO0/- to the comPiainant was conhrmed'

2. Heard Sri Gudi Satyana rayarra' learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri E'Galesh' learned assistant public prosecutor Kattrrnga, learned for the respondent No' 1 and Smt'Padmaja counsel for the resPondent No'2' 3 CC No.541 of 2013 is a case registered for the offence Section 138 of NI Act against the alleging that the petitioner/ accused failed to punishable under petitioner/ accused - k ! honour the c:hsqus bearing No.76g715, dated 04.1r .2017 tor Rs.2,40,O0O/ - drawn on State Bank of India, paradisr: Branch, Secunderabarl, issued to the complainant towards discharge of legally enlbrce able debt and he even failed to repay the said amount even after receipt of legal notice. The cas3 0f the complainant is that w.ith the acquaintance the accused requested and received va-rious amounts on different occasions and when he issued the sutject cheque for discharge of the said amou,t, it was dishonoured fru. insufficiency offunds in his account.

4. To prove his case, the complainant got e:<amined himself a pW_ and examined pW2, stating that he u.,ltnessed accused borrovr,ng amount from pW1. The complainant e.rhibited Exs.Pl to 6 wh.<;h are subject cheque, return memo, office copy of legal notice, I)ostar receipt, postar acknowredgemerrt and statement oj'aocount of the accused. No oral or docunrentar5r evidence was acicluced on behalfof the accused. 5' 'Ihe lriar court, basing on the above evrdence, trolding that the complainant proved existence of legally enlorceab [e debt due from the ac:used and in discharge of the same, the ar:cused issued the subj,r,:t cheque and failed to honour the same and despite receipt cf statutory notice, he failed either to repay the same or to issue any reply, found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him as stated suPra

6. Aggrieved bY the said hndings, the petitioner file of the No.634 of 2014 on the preferred Criminal APPeal appellate Court, holding that the trial Court failed to consider the material placed on record in right perspective and hence' the said findings may be set aside' The appellate Court' holding that the complainant succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act' confrrmed the hndings of the trial Court'

7. Aggrieved by the hndings of the appellate Court' the present criminal revision case is being preferred by the petitioner/ accused mainly contending that the subject cheque was a blank signed cheque issued to the wife of the complainant in a chit transaction pertaining to Nirmala Kumari- Enterprises' run by the wife of the complainant and by misusing the said cheque the complainant got him implicated in the present case'

8. On the other hand' learned prosecutor and learned counsel for the vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that both the impugned judgments are well reasons respondent No.2, assistant Public I l i I I I I L E I findings :rnci case do rot findings. the grounds urged through this criminal revision warrant interference of this Court with the said implicated in the

9. This Court perused the material placed including the impugned juc.Elments and heard the rival contentions ad,zanced by the learned counsel on either side. The case of the accused/petitioner herein is that he issued the subject <:heque to the wife of tht: complainant in connection with a chit trzLnsaction and by misusing the said cheque, the complainant got him present case By putting forth h is above defence, arrcl Eling the receipts, issued by the wife of the complainant i.e. owner of Nirmala Kumari Enterprises, who ran chit fund in wluch the accused was a member, the accusr:d could able to rebr:t Lhe presumption available under Sectionr; 11g(a) a-nd 139 oI prl Act in favour of the complainant. pW1/the complainant, during his cross_examination admitted that he did not obtain any r.eceipt of Dp note from the accused to es;tablish his lending m lney to the accused. pW2 who stated to be witnessed one of the transactions of lending amount of Rs.2,O0,0OO/- t,) the accused expressed his ignorance replarding lending of remaining amounts to the accused by the complainant. Ex.P6 shows with,drawal of amounts by the complainant fr<>m his Page 5 of7 bank accoult but this itself cannot fortiS the case of the complainant that he lent those arnounts to the accused since there is no documentary proof to establish that the accused had taken the subject amount from the complainant. Though PW2 stated that he was present on the occasion of complainant lending Rs.2,OO,OOO/- to the accused, he expressed his ignorance regarding lending other amounts, which arises a suspicion regarding his evidence to draw a presumption that he is deposing to support the comPlainant.

10. It is a settled law that in the cases of criminal nature, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the case on hand, so much of cloud is surrendered around the case of the complainant since he did not obtain any receipt from the accused to forti$r his contention of advancing amount to the accused. Further, P2's evidence is totally not supporting the case of complainant as he did not witness some of the alleged transactions between the accused and the complainant. In such scenario, a beneht of doubt goes in favour of the accused.

11. Further, from the inception the petitioner/accused has been denying his signature on ttre cheque' It is settled proposition of law that in NI Act cases, the initial burden of proof-- : i i i_ Page 6 of7 lies with ttLr: complainant to establish the existence ol. a legally enforceable rlebt and that a cheque was issued to dis:harge that debt. \tr/he r_. once this is proven, the burden shifts on to the accused to demonstrate that the debt did not exist, due to the presumptior created under Section 139 of the NI Act. [n the case on hand, ex,:ept the subject cheque there is no other document like promiss,try note etc., to substantiate the contention of the complaina.nt that he lent amount to the accused. Further, the evidence of p.lr2 is not wholly reliable since he did not witness the entire transar:iions between the parties and he admitted in this regard during cross_examination. Though the complainant Iiled Ex.P6 statemt:nt of account showing withdrawal of the amounts from the banl:, at best it cal show his financial capacit5r but it cannot be trezLl.ed as a proof to show that the complair ant lent amount to th e accused since there is no piece of przpsp 16 establish the szrme.

12. When the above facts and crrcumstances meticulously ot,served, the findings of the trial Court as well as the appellate court finding the petitioner guilty lbr the offence under Section I il8 of NI Act appears to be erroneous sirLce the main limb of 13tt of NI Act i.e. existence of legally enforceable debt between the parl ies is not proved by the complainant trevond =I t ri: reasonable doubt' Further' the complainant failed to prove that the subject cheque was issued by the accused to discharge a Iegally enforceable debt' In such circumstances' this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant failed to prove his cade beyond all debt and hence' the present criminal revision cases deserve5 16 Ss allswed'

13. In the result, the criminal revisron case allowed Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2018 in Criminal Appeal No'630 of 2Ol4 on the hle of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge' Secunderabad' conlrrming the judgment dated 22'05'2014 in CC No'541 ol 2Ol3 onthefileofthelearnedXlspecialMagistrateatHyderabadare set aside. The bail bonds of the accused stands here bY cancelled- l4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending' shall stand closed' /ITRUE COPY'I Sd,- M.Ma-NJULA REGISTRAR DEP ECTIO N OFFICER To 1 :1;"..Tifl jXfiffi lil"1;5;il:J3:::',#',"ffi ":"::ffi "-;93'?"t. ansana a'l ,ie "'re

2. 3.

4. 5 b / l\T,#tt$*:,..].;;;;#ffi Two CD Copies prp/;Hng with the joint memo of compromise) '-q i-lrJ- , - *=1."7 I j N E ..rif.ln, HIGH COURT DATED:29 t}lt2O2S \ \ ORDER CRLRC.No.205 of 2019 o <) :..1,, 2/ llAfiffi t f)i"., * "::tt ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE /o 1z 4//32 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA :: AT:I HYDERABAD Crl.R.C.No. 205 of 2019 Between: K, Paul, S/o. K. Surender Rao, Aged about 56 Yeafs, Occ: Pvt Service, Rlo. H.No.a-42 -B2o/4l,Asbestas Colony, Street No'Z Kukatpally, HYder-aH6d. .., Petitioner/Respondents/Complainant And 1 2 M. Naresh, S/q Laxmana Chary, Aged ab.out 33 yeqp, Occ: Pvt' Service' R/or H.lrlo:a-+2-405, Asbestas Colony, Street No'7' Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State' ...nesp"ona"nt/Revision petiti6iier/Accused The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prdsecutor, High Court at Hyderabad' ' ,..ResPondents/ResPondent JO INT MEMO lt is submitted that the Petitioner/Accused has filed present 1. Criminal Bevision against judgment passed in C'C'No'54U2013 (old C.C.No,16/12), dated 22-05-2014 on the file of Xl Spl' lVlagistrate Court' Secunderabad which was confirmed in CBLA No' 634 of 2014 on 22- 11-2O1B,on the file of Spl' Judge, for trial of offences under S'Cs & S'TS (POA) Act-cum-Vl Addl' Metropolitan Sessions Judge' Secunderabad' 2, lt is submitted that at the instance of elders and well-wishers of the Petitioner/Accused and the Respondent/Complainant' both the I.:-_- parties have settled th, fear and that the ou:. :'"0'-t amicably without any coercion or ;::.:,:1 J: Hence this loint rr,,umo. " ffi il3"J':,i :J[:#: *;"";,: e is pending before this Hon,ble Court .f ,, E* Hyderabad. Dt:29-10-2024 ( counsel for the Fiespondent I No.2 Petit. ^. J-J, toner,zAccus?il counsel for the petitioner a,) complainapf,fllJpondent No,2 l