The High Court · 2025

S.Srinivas Rao S/o.Raghavaiah, aged aboul42 years,.occ: Real Estate Erii'rlrlilotr." ai Hid ss, inise-"v, KukatpallrHousins Board colonv' Hyderabad-500 085. ...ResPondenUAPPellanUAccused 2 The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hii"ilu'io, roiind Staie df rirlangana and the State of A P ...ResPondentslResPondents l.A. NO:2 oF 2015(CRL AMP. NO: 1330 oF 201s) PetitionunderSection3Ts(4)ofCr-P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pi"r""U t" grant inteirm suspension of the judgment dated 09 07'2015 made in 6rr n.N".zrz oI 2014, by the Vlll Additional District & Sessions Jduge, Ranga n.iuv oirtii"t at L.B.Nagar as otherwise the respondent / accused will withdraw ih;#p;.ii; amount o,i the fite of the ,t Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram at L.B.Nagar. l t I i Counsel for the Appellant :Sri Challa Sivasankar counsel for the Respondent No.2 : sri E Ganesh, Assistant pubric prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.848 OF 2015 JUD GMENT: This Criminal Appeat is filed by the appellant/complainant seeking to set aside the reversing judgment of acquittal dated Og.O7.2025 in Crl.A.No.7 12 of 2Ol4 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, "the appellate Court") ald conhrm judgment d,ated 22.O8.2014 irt' C'C'No'71 of 2Ol4 passed by the learned III Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram at L'B'Nagar' R'R' District (for short, "the trial Court")'

2. Heard Sri Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, and Sri E' Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No'2-State' Perused the material available on record'

3. Tle brief facts of the case are tLwt accused and complainant are friends. The accused does Real Estate business in Ranga Reddy District as well as in twin cities i'e' Hyderabad and Secunderabad. There is a long relation in Real Estate r 2 EW,J CRLA.No.848_2O75 : business between the complainant and the accused from the year 2005. Ther complainant provides harrd loans to the accused for business irnd accused used to pay monthly interest. The accused paicl principal arnounts to the complainant through the Cheques drawn from Oriental Balk dated 1g.07.2011 for Rs.3,0O,000/- and another cheque drawn from HDFC Bank dated 25.01.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/_ in connection with earlier hald loans.

3.1 It is further stated that after repayment of above loal total aflount of Rs.5,0O,O0O/_ the accused ..qu.st"d complainant ln the month of Februar5r 2or2 to advance loa, of Rs.2O,OO,00O,/- lor urgent business needs promising to repay within six months with interest @ 360/o. The complainarrt paid said amount to the accused in the presence of one D. Sree Ramulu REddy, rvho is Co-partner/friend of accused.

3.2. It is alleged that the complainant demarrded for repa5'T nent of lo^n after expiry of six months. The accused did not repay loal amount in spite of several demands. The complainant r.r.ai ted for repa5rment up to July 2O13. The accused 3 ,::, ./'' EW,J CRLA.N,.84A-2O 75 promised to sell his property in the month of August 2013 and to repay the loan. At last, the accused voluntarily issued two cheques in favour of complainant uide cheque bearing No.643024 dated 19.08.2013 for Rs' 1O,OOO/- and cheque bearing No.643025 dated 19.08.2013 for Rs'10,00,000/- drawn onOrientalBankofCommerceSriNagarColony,Hyderabad towards principal amount and accused promised to pay the interest in the month of Septembet 2Ol3'

3.3. It is stated that on instruction of the accused' the complainant presented said Cheques in his Bank i'e' State Barrk oflndia,GaddiannaramBranchDilsukhnagar,Hyderabadon 24.08.2013, but the cheques were dishonored on the ground that there is insuff,rcient funds in the account of the accused and the complainant received such memos on 27 'O8 '2013 ' Thereafter, the complainant met the accused ttrrough his friend D.Sree Ramulu Reddy for returning amount of Rs'20'OO'O0O/- with interest and also intimated about the dishonor of cheques.

3.4. It is stated that seeing the attitude of accused' the complainant got issued Legal Notice to accused through--h,is 4 EW,J CRLA.No.84a_2OI S Advocate on 0.+.09.2013 calling upon the accused to repay the amount within fifteen days. The notice is served on the accused on 12.09.20 t3 as per acknowledgment signed by the accused. The accused got issued reply notice dated 01.10.2013 through his advocate. It is stated that the accused admitted the liability and tralsaction between him and the complainant and also about issuance of cheques. But to avoid payments, the accused created a story. that he has paid amount in respect of cheques and the complainant did not return the cheques. The accused also admitted that he has taken arrother loan amount of Rs.2,0O,000/- on 01.O7.2011 from the complainant without interest and h-e has issued two promissory notes in favour of the complainant. It is stated that the above loan cannot be linked with the cheques number now dishonoured. Therefore, the accused a-lleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 ol the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the NI Act") he may be punished awarding compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Hr:nce, the complaint. 4 After appreciation of oral and documentaqr evidence available on record, the trial Court uide jud,gment dated 5 EW,J CR]LA.No.a48-2O75

22.08.2014 in C.C.No.71 of 2Ol4 passed by the learned III Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram at L'B'Nagar, Ranga Reddy District found the accused guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act a]ild sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay a fine of Rs' 10,000/- and in defautt of payment of fine directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs'30,0O,000/- within a period of one month from the date of judgment and in default of payment of compensation to furttrer undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

5. Aggrieved by the above-said judgment, the appellant/accused hied Crl.A.No.712 of 2Ol4 before the Additional District and sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. However, the said appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 22-Oa.2Ol4 in C'C'No'71 of 2Ol4 passed by the learned III Special Magistrate L'B'Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and the accused was not found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he was.- .,' ( :./ i i i i 6 EW,J CRL/L. No.84a_2O 7 5 acquitted undr)r Section 2SS(1) of Cr.p.C. and the fine amount and compensation ordered, if paid would be refunded to the accused after appeal time. Therefore, the appellant/complainant has filed the pr,esent Criminal Appea_t before this Court.

6. k:ar.ned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that. the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence avarlable on record in proper perspective ald passed the impugne<l judgment by acquitting the accused and hence, seeks to set asicle the impugned judgment.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused/responclent No. 1 a',d learned Assistalt public Prosecutor conl_ended that the appellate Court upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, acquitted the accused and ttre interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, learne:d counsel seeks to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. a. On behalf of the complainant, the trial Court examined PW. I and pW.2 marked Exs.p1 to pg. On behalf of the defence, the acr:used examined his accountant as DW. 1 and marked Exs.Dl to D.9g. 7 EW,J CRLA.No.a4a 2015 I The lower Appellate Court, upon a careful scrutiny of oral and documentarlr evidence, observed that the complainartt had not obtained any promissory note for the loan in question' which, according to the Court, indicated that the case as pleaded by the complainant was false. The Court noted that there was considerable force in the contention raised, as the complainant had obtained promissory notes from the accused for earlier loans, as per the evidence on record' It was further observed that the trial Court had failed to properly consider the oral and documentar5r evidence in the context of the specihc case presented by the complainant and the defence put forth by the accused. Consequently, the reasons given by the trial Court for accepting the case against the accused were held not to withstald lega-I scrutinY.

10. It is well settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, ttre appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation thatnointerferencehastobemadewitht}reorderunlessthe 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 have been possibly 8 EW,J CRLA.No.a4a 20Is arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, to bt: charac tertzed as perverse. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generaily, the order of acquittal shall not be interfr:re,d with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread, which r:uns through the web of administration of justice in crimina-1 r:ar;es, is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduc,ed in the case, one pointing to the guitt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to thr: accused should be adopted.

11. In Mrtnal Das Vs. State of Trtpurat, the Apex Court held as urrder: "It is clear that in an appeal against acquittat in the absence o i perversity in the judgment and order, interferencr: by this Court exercising its extraordinar5r jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by' an appellate court, being the fina_l court of fact, is fulll' competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and reyiew the t:vidence and take its own decision. In other ' (zorr) q scc +zc 9 DW,J CRLA.No.848-2075 words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such powel and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The 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. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so' If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reasonilor interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dytng 10 EW,J CRLA.No.848-2OI S declaration/report of ba_liistic experts etc., the appeilat€. court is competent to reverse the decision of the tria_l Oourt depending on the materials placed.,,

12. In Matoth SomaraJu Vs. State of Andhra prordes:ri2 the Apex Court held that there carl be no two opinions that merely becaus,: the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be tal<en, the judgment of acquittal ca_nnot be upset. The appellatr: rl)ourt has more a,d serious responsibilit5r while dealing with thr: judgment of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable arrd where the appellate Colrrt comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the jud,gnLent of acquittal carnot be upset. Since the lower appellate court has taken into consideration the finding that the accused is nor_ guilty of the alleged offences the decision which is in favour of the :tccused should be taking into consideration. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care. ' 12or r; R scc o:s .t: 11 EW,J CRLA.No.848'2O75

13. In view of the Judgments referred to above and for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that there a-re rro merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. L4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed; confirming the judgment dated 09.O7.2025 in Crl.A.No.712 of 2Ol4 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, r pending shall stand closed. Sd/- T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l L.B. Nagar .1. The Vlll Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Z. ine if f dpecial Magistrate, Hasthinapuram at L'B'.Nagar' R R District' a. on" ccio sRl CHILLA SIVASANKAR, Advocate [oPUc] ;. i;; ccs to tre public prosecutor, High court for the State of relangana at Hyderabad (OUT) I

5. Two CD CoPies ADK,/PSL HIGH COURT- DATED:07108t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.848 of 2O1S 10 [[T z$ffi DISMISSING THE CRLA te(