Hvderabad High Court · 2025

'l . M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies, At C9 and 10 units, lndustrial Estate, Autonagar Vrjaywada Andhra Pradesh, Also at M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies, E 32, 100 Ft. Road, Autonagar Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh Also at M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies D#23-8-1 I A Adiseshaiah Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Viiayawada 11, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Mr. B.Sudhakar, Partner, M/s. Vaishnavi Chemicals, At C9 and 10 units, lndustrial Estate, Autonagar, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh, Also at- Mr. B.Sudhakar S/o Shri Subharamaiah, Flat No. D-3, lllrd Floor, K.G.B Apartments, Near Gupta Kalyan Mandap, Close to Bunder Road, Vijayawada- 10, Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Nos.1 & 2

3. The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 570 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 08.O2.2017 passed in C.C No. 79 of 2013 (Old C.C.No.4 of 2013) on the file of the court of the lll Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between: M/s. Rallis lndia Limited, Rep,, by its Authorized Person Mr. Krishnamurthy Sudarshan. S/o late T.V Krishnamurthy, aged 63 Years, Regional Office- D#23-11- '101, N R P. Road, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-1 1, Andhra Pradesh AND ...APPELLANT/COM PLAINANT 'l . M/s. Srr Lakshmi Agencies, At C9 and 10 units, lndustrial Estate, Autonagar Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh, Also at M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies, E 32. 100 Ft. Road. Autonagar Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh Also at M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies D#23-8-1lA Adiseshaiah Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vi.yayawada 1 1, Andhra Pradesh. 2 Mr B.Sudhakar, Partner, M/s. Vaishnavi Chemicals, At C9 and 10 units, lndustrial Estate, Autonagar, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh, Also at- ttrl r B Sudhakar S/o Shri Subharamaiah, Flat No. D-3, lllrd Floor, K G B Apartments, Near Gupta Kalyan Mandap, Close to Bunder Road, Vijayawada- 1 0, Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Nos.1 & 2

3. The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hvd€rabad ...RES'.NDENT/RES,.NDENT CRIMINAL APPEALNO: 573 Of 2018 Appeal under Sectircn 378(4) of Cr.P.C against the Judgrnent dated O8.O2.2O17 passed in C.C No. 77 of 2$13 (Old C.C.No.2 of 2O13) on the file of the court of the lll Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between: M/s. Rallis lndia Limited, Rep., by its Attthorized Person Mr. Krishnamurthy Sudarshan, S/o. late T.V Krishnamurthy, aged 63 Years, Regional O{fice- D#23-11- 101 , N.R.P. Road, Satyanarayanapuram, Viiayawada-11, Andhra Pradesh ...APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT AND

1. M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies, At C9 and 10 units, lndustrial Estate, Autonagar Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh, Also at M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies, E 32, 100 Ft Road, Autonagar Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh Also at M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies D#23-8-1 /A Adiseshaiah Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada 11, Andhra Pradesh. 2 Mr- B.Sudhakar, Partner, M/s. Vaishnavi Chemicals, At C9 and '10 units' lndustrial Estate, Autonagar, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh, Also at- Mr. B.sudhakar S/o Shri Subharamaiah, Flat No- D-3, lllrd Floor, K.G.B Apartments, Near Gupta Kalyan Mandap, Close to Bunder Road, Vriayawada- 10' Andhra Pradesh ...REspoNDENTS/AccusED Nos.1 & 2 3 The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hvderabad ...RES'.NDENT/RE',.NDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 588 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P C against the Judgrnent dated 08.022017 passed in c.c No. 78 of 2013 (Old C.C.No 3 of 2013) on the file of the court of the lll Special Magistrate, Hyderabad Between: M/s Rallis lndia Limited, Rep., by its Authorized Person Mr. Krishnamurthy Sudarshan, S/o. late T.V Krishnamurthy, ag.ed 63 Years, Regional offtcfu- D#23-11' 101, N R,P. Road, Sa$anarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11, Andhra Pradesh ..APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT AND

1. M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies, At C9 and 10 units, lndustrial Estate, Autonagar Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh, Also at M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies, E 32, 100 Ft. Road, Autonagar Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh Also at M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies D#23-B-1lA Adiseshaiah Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada 11, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Mr. B.Sudhakar, Partner, M/s. Vaishnavi Chemicals, At C9 and 10 units, lndustrial Estate, Autonagar, V4aywada, Andhra Pradesh, Also at- Mr. B.Sudhakar Sio Shri Subharamaiah, Flat No. D-3, lllrd Floor, K.G.B Apartments, Near Gupta Kalyan Mandap, Close to Bunder Road, Vijayawada- 10, Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Nos.1 & 2

3. The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant in all appeals: SRI N. NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in all appeals: SRI PADAMUTHAM JOHN MATHEWCALEB Counsel for the Respondent No.3 in all appeals: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI TTUSTICE K.SITRENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.533, 568, 57O, 573 and 588 OF 2018 COMMOIT JUDGMEI{T: 1. Criminal Appeal No.533 of 2OLB is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the acquittal of accused vide judgment in C.C.No.76 of 2013 dated Oa.O2.2Ol7. Criminal Appeai No.568 of 2018 is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the acquittal of accused vide judgment in C.C.No.8O of 2013 dated 08.O2-2017. Criminal Appeal No.57O of 2018 is fited by the appellant aggrieved by the acquittal of accused vide judgment in C.C.No.79 of 2013 dated O8.O2.2O17. Criminal Appeal No,573 of 2018 is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the acquittal of accused vide judgment in C.C.No.77 of 2013 dated O8.O2.2O17, and Criminal Appeal No.588 of 2018 is liled by the appellant aggrieved by the acquittal of accused vide judgment in C.C.No.78 of 2Ol3 dated 08.02.2017. Since parties in all the appeals are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed otf by way of this Common Judgment.

2. The appeltant company herein is the complainant before the Iearned III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. A private complaint was filed to punish the respondent/accused for the offence under 2 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant company is a public limited company and the 1"t respondent/l"t accused is a partnership firm represented by its partners A2 to A7. A3 is the signatory of the cheques in question, in all tJle cases. According to the complainant, all other accused, i.e., A2, A4 to A7 were responsible for the day to day activities of A1 partnership frrm, and are jointly liable.

3. Briefly, the case of the complainant company in all the cases is that, the complainant company's products, which are fertilizers, chemicals, and pesticides, supplied to respondents/accused ona regular basis as part of a business understanding. The products were delivered by the complainant company and accepted by the accused frrm. Towards pa5rment of the outstanding amounts for the products supplied, cheques in question were issued. The following cheques, when presented for clearance, were returned unpaid on the ground of, "pa5rment stopped by drawer", and in Crl.A.No.627 of 2018, the reason for return of the cheque is, "insufficient funds". Crl.Appeal number Parties names Cheque No.& amount Against CC No. Crl.A.No.533 of 2018 Against CC No.73 of 20L3 Crl.A.No.568 of 2018 Against CC No.80 of 2013 Crl.A.No.S7O of 2018 against CC No.79 of 2013 Crl.A.No.573 of 2018 against C.C.No.77 of 2013 Crl.A.No.588 of 2Ol8 against C.C.No.78 of 2013 3 M/s.Rallis India Limited. M/s.Sri Agencies & others t,akshmi India M/s.Rallis Limited. M/s.Sri Agencies & others Lakshmi India M/s.Rallis Limited. M/s.Sri Agencies & others I^akshmi India M/s.Rallis Limited. M/s.Sri Agencies & others Lakshmi India M/s.Rallis Limited. M/s.Sri Agencies & others Lakshmi Cheque No.532924, dt.20.o3.2003 Rs. 15,O0,00O/- issued Cheque No.532923, dt.28.o2.2003 Rs.15,O0,00O/- issued Cheque No.532926, dt.31.03.2003 15,OO,OOO/- issued Cheque No.532920, dt.20.o 1.2003 15,O0,OO0/- issued Cheque No.532922, dt.21.o2.2003 Rs.15,OO,O0O/- issued bearing bearing bearing bearing bearing

4. The learned Magistrate examined witnesses on behalf of the complainant, and the documents were ma-rked during trial. Heavy reliance was placed on the statement of account Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, letter of the accused, as the basis to show that there was an 4 outstanding. Learned Magistrate, having considered the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the following grounds: 1) Ex.P3 is the statement of account which cannot be looked into since there is no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 2) Under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, in a statement of account, the entries would be relevant, but there should be other evidence in support of such statement of account to infer Iiability 3) P.W.2 admitted that though there is supporting material, the same was not hled in the case. 4) Ex.P4 letter reflects that there is an outstanding to a tune of Rs.3,69,76,348/-, and P.W.2 admitted that there was statement by way of the MoU dated 31.03.2oo4, however, the said MOU was not hled 5) Ex.P4 letter does not show that seven post-dated cheques were issued towards outstanding liability. 5 6) P.W.2 admitted that he cannot correctly say the outstanding as on 29.LL.2OO2, which is the date of Ex.P4 letter. 7) According to Ex.P4, there was arl agreement on 27.LL.2OO2. However, the said agreement was not filed. Once P'W.2 admitted that there is claim by A1 firm against the complainant, and Ex.P4 reflects that the complainant assured to issue correct notes for the amount and Ex.P4 does not contain the details of the post-dated cheques, it can only be concluded that the cheques in question were not issued for any existing liability. 8) When Exs.P3 and P4 are excluded from consideration, there is no other evidence to substantiate that the accused are Iiable to pay any amounts.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that once the signature on the cheque and its issuance are admitted, presumption is raised under Section 139 of the Negotiabte Instruments Act, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption by any admissible evidence. The learned Magistrate 6 had committed an error in finding the accused not guilty, though there was no dispute regarding the issuance of the cheques.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused argued that the hndings of the learned Magistrate needs no interference since they are based on record and reasonable.

7. The Honble Supreme Court in Chaudrabhan Sudam Saaap v. The State of Maharashtral, held as follows: "49. This judgment has put the matter beyond controuersg. In uieut of the aboue, there is no manner of doubt that certificate under Sedion 65-8(4) is a condition precedent to th.e admissibilitg of evidence bg wag of electronic record and further it is clear that the Court has also Lrcld Anutar P.V.(suprQ to be the conect position of lau." 8 The finding of the trial Court can be reversed by the appellate Court only when the appellant makes out a case to show that the trial Court has omitted to consider the evidence on record or that the findings are contrarJr to the evidence adduced by the complainant. Unless compelling reasons are shown, the question of reversing an order of acquittal does not arise. I Criminal Appeal No.879 of 2019 dated 28.01.2025 7

9. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhil and another2, the Hon'lcle Supreme Court held that while dealing with an '/ appeal a€ainst acquittal, the appeltate court has to consider whetlrer the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when 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.

10. ln Ghureg Lal o. State oJ Uttar Pradesh', the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of Iaw and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70 as follows: '70. Ia the light of the aboue, the Hqh Court and oth.er appellate Courts slautd foltou; tle taelt-settled pinciples crystallized bg number of Judgmen* if it is going to ouerrule or otherusise disturb the trial court's oquitat

1. The appetlate court may only ouemtle or othenuise disturb tle trial @urt's aquittal if it hns "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in uthich the appelbte court uouW laue "uery substontial and compelling reasons" to dbcard. tlle trial coud's decisbtt- 'Very substantial and compelling reasons" eist uhen: i) Tle trial aurt's conclusion with regard to the fads is palpablg utrong: ii) The tridl court's decision uas based on an erroneous uieut of lau; iii) The triol court's judgment is likely to result in 'graue misaniage of iu) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing t ith tle euidence uas justice'; patentlg illegel; 21202218 Supreme Court cases 536 '120081 10 Supreme Court cases 450 8 u) The trial court,s iuaS-\:t tual ui) The trial qurt has ignored the iufa"i". ?antfe.2tlg unjust and unreasonabte; .or misread the mrtterial mateiat d".";";;-i;"'-isins aecta,ati.iJ i.p",|li i#;ffi;: #.ivared uii)I:his list is intended. to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. .2. Tlte appellate @urt must alutants oiue t consid.eration .'ii n ,air.,6 .f tn" ti"t i"il"r lf two reasonable uieus can be reached._ one that lead.s to acquittat, the other to conuiction_the High Courts/ appettate courts must rule in fauour of the eluc proper uteight and accused." I l. In the case on hand, even according to the complainant, the transactions were over a period of time and the material was supplied and paJrments were also received. only for the reason of the issuance of cheques and signatures being admitted, the Court cannot 10se sight of the transactions in between the parties to come to a conclusion regarding the outstanding liability against the cheques issued' The transactions in between the parties are to be looked into in its entiret5r, and the court cannot place reriance onry on the fact that the cheques were issued. The burden that shifts onto the accused can be discharged by the preponderance of probabilit5r' once the accused places before the court, either by producing any evidence or on the basis of the oral and documentar,r evidence of the complainant, that there is no outstancling, the Court can consider the evidence on record and acquit the accused. Once 9 it is found that the complainant stated that there was sulflcient evid.ence to prove the outstanding, however could not prove the documents on record by admissible evidence, the complainant fails to prove its case against the accused. Only on the ground that the issuance of cheque was admitted, the same cannot be made basis to convict Ote accused since the complainant tailed to prove the I I 0 outstanding as discussed. L2. Learned Magistrate found that the very basis for launching prosecution is Ex.P3, the statement of account, which cannot be looked into, since there is no certihcate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, and Ex.P4 letter does not contain the details of the outstanding or the transactions, since there is no clarity regarding the liability of A1 firm. Further, there being no proof of supply of material, the cheques in question being issued to pay any existing outstanding, cannot be believed. In the present facts, when ,{: there are no specific averments to implicate A2, A4 to A7 by making them vicariously liable, or reflecting their involvement, and also Exs.P3 and P4 have not been proved by complying with the requirements of secondar5r evidence, there is no infirmity in the L0 finding of the learned Magistrate. There are no compelling reasons to interflere with the said finding.

13. Accordingly, all the Criminal Appeals are dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SAILESHI J INT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 'l The lll Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT]

3. One CC to Sri N. Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Padamutham John Mathewcaleb, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Plp/DL w ,l I i I I i HIGH COURT DATED:1210312025 COMMON JUDGMENT \ .;' o o rHE ST4re 01 itiY 2025 z o I 6_O CRLA.Nos.533,568, 510,573 and S8g of 2O1g DISMISSING ALL THE CRIMINAL APPEALS. G) 0 t aL ot)l'1