Amidepuram Hari Kiran Kumar v. State of Telangana, Rep

...Respondent No.1 2. Golla _ Suryachandra^ . Rao, _ S/o. Ganga Raju Age: 50 years, !.c9, evt Ell.ptoyee R:/o. WR Street, Sath"upaili T6wn, Sltnupilti fulnOat, Khammam City and District. ...Respondent No.2 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the order Dt. 1z-03-202s passed in crl. M.p. No.13 of 2024 in crl. Appeal No,23 of 2024 on the file of court of the Vl Additional sessions Judge at sathupally and consequenfly direct the Respondent No.2/complainant to produce the loan documents obtained from shri Ram city Union Finance Lim ited. l.A. NO:1OF 2025 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in connection to the crl. Appeal No.23 of 2024 on the file of court of Vl Additional sessions Judge at Sathupally, till the disposal of the present eUASH petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G.Ravi Chandrasekhar, learned counsel represented Sri G Ravi Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.Jithender Rao, Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI cRt MIN AL PETI TION No. 4723 0F 2025 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed under Section S2g of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BNSS, 2023,) seeking quashment of the order dated 12.03.2025 in Crl.M.p. No. 13 of 2024 in Crl.A.No. 23 of 2OZ4 passed by the learned Vl Additional Sessions Judge, Sathupally, and consequenfly to direct respondent No'2/comprainant to produce roan documents obtained from shriram City Union Finance Limited.

2. I have heard lVlr. p.V.L.S. Sri Chakrapani, learned counsel, representing Mr. G. Ravi Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramara, rearned Additionar pubric Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1_State. 3' The petitioner/apperant, who is the accused in the carendar case, was convicted under section 1 3g of the Negotiabre rnstruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter,the Nl Act,). Aggrieved by the conviction, he preferred an appeal and, in the course of appellate proceedings, filed a petition under Section 391 read with Section 9.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'the Cr.P.C.'), seeking a direction to to produce educational loan records .respondent No.2/complainant 2 NN,IJ Crt.P.No.172) of 2D5 pertaining to the complainant's daughter as additional evidence before the appellate Court. This petition was dismissed by the appellate Court' Challenging the said dismissal, the petitioner/appellant has filed the preserrt Petition. 4 specificallY Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthattheappellant sought summoning of the complainant's daughter's loan documents to establish the complainant's financial educational capacity, which is material to the adjudication of the appeal' lt is further submitted tnat during the cross-examination of the complainant' the petitioner had raised questions and elicited responses regarding the complainant's financial ability to extend the loan in question' thereby laying foundational relevance for the additional evidence Despite this' the appellate Court summarily rejected the petition without due consideration of the evidentiary value and relevance of the documents sought. Therefore, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside and that appropriate directions be issued to summon and admit the said documents as additional evidence in the interest of justice and for effective adjudication of the appeal' 5 I have perused the materials on record From the record, it is evident that the petitioner/appellanuaccused 6. admitted issuance of the cheque in question but disputed the transatn \ J AITR./r Cr/.P.No. 472) of 2025 /1, as alleged by the complainant. Given this admission regarding both the issuance of the cheque and the signature, the statutory presumption under section 139 of the Nr Act operates in favour of respondent No.2/complainant. This presumption incrudes the existence of a legafly enforceable debt or liability. 7 ' However, the petitioner/appeilant has faired to crearry estabrish how the cheque came into the possession of the complainant. lVloreover, it is unclear whether the issue of the complainant,s rending capacity was raised as a defence at the earriest possibre stage of the proceedings. lt is weil-setfled that mere assertions questioning the complainant's financial capacity are insufficient unless substantiated by a probable and prausibre defence. whire the comprainant has averred the existence of a loan transaction, the petitioner seeks to summon documents from the comprainant's banker in an attempt to demonstiate tlre complainant's financiar incapacity. However, the extent to which such documents would negate the complainant,s lending capacity remains speculative and unsubstantiated. 8' considering simirar circumstances, the Hon'bre supreme court in Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass MahandT in paragraph No.10 held that "10. The trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in the case under Section ,138 of the Nl Act the complainant need not show in 1 (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 735 4 Ar--/BJ Cr/.P.Na. 172) of 2025 the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent' the courts in our view were right in holding on those lihes' However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents lt is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself He can further, more particularly, achieve this result through the cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence."

9. Even in the instant case, it is evident that the defence pleaded herein has not been raised at the earliest including in the trial proceedings. Furthermore, as correctly observed by the trial Cou(' the petitioner sought documents from Shriram City Union Finance Limited, although PW-1 (the complainant) did not identify this institution as the source of any loan availed. This disconnect further weakens the petitioner's position. ln this context, the trial Court's assessment and reasoning appear to be well-founded and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. .--. .', 5 ArlR/ Cr/.P.No. 472) of 2025

10. Additionally, Section 391 of the Cr.p.C. empowers the appellate court to admit additionar evidence, if it is deemed necessary for a just and proper adjudication of the appeal. However, the invocation of this provision requires the appeilant to estabrish a convincing and tenabre ground to justify the reception of such evidence: The petitioner/appeflant has not met this threshold. 1 1 ' ln light of the foregoing, it is evident that the petitioner has faired to demonstrate a valid basis for interference. Consequenily, no error or illegality can be found in the order impugned. The criminal petition, therefore, Iacks merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

12. Resultanfly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/.A. JAYASRE,E TANT REGISTRAR s To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I

1. The Vl Additional Sessions Judge at Sathupally 2. One CC to Sri. G Ravi Chandra Sekhar, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana 4. Two CD Copies. touTl I rl- ^ ytn ,psr.W' HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 !i,: s7....,\ 'o):. ? O SEP M25 \.. \:. ''..,/ ORDER GRLP.No.4723 o12025 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. ,#