The High Court · 2025

1 The State of A.P. Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Puli Ravi Kumar, S/o Kanakaiah, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o H.No.'15-2-98, Rangampet, Warangal. ...Appellant ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Vivek Jain Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri S Lakshmi Kanth The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1447 OF 2O1O JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated O8.O7.2OO9 in Crl.A.No.l 1 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. 2 Heard learned counsel appellant/complainant, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2/accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.l-State. Perused the record. The parties will be referred to as in the triat Court. 3 The case of the complainant is that the complainant and the accused are friends and the accused introduced DW. l/Rammohan to the complainant. DW. 1 took a hand loan of Rs.3O,000/- and executed a promissory note. Since DW. I failed to repay the said 2 <l ,l arnount, the complainant insisted the accused to pay the amount. In the ProNote, the accused stood as a guarantor. Accordingly, the cheque in question was issued. 4 The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 5 In the appeal filed by the accused before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge found that entire amounts that were due by DW. 1 were paid and in proof of pa5rment of the amounts, Exs.D1, D3, D6 andDT were filed. In the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge found favour with the version that the entire amounts were repaid by the DW. 1 and there is no outstanding. In so far as accused is concerned, he stood as a guarantor.

6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Ra;ui Sho;nna v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) 3 qnd. @notherr, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on recor-d has been analyzed. 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 7 In Ghureg La.l a. State of Uttar Prad.esh2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at paraTO, as follows: "7O. ln the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court,s acquittal: I 1ZO2.Zt8 Supremc r oun Cases 536 ' (2008 ) l0 Suprenr( Coun Cases 450 4 l.The appellate court may only overmle or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: i) The tria-l court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palPablY wrong: ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; ii| The trial court's judgment is likely iv) to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; The entire approach of the tfial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court's judgment was vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations f report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be manifestly unjust and unreasonable; illustrative, not exhaustive.

2.The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views cEIn be reached- one that leads to acquittal, the conviction High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused." -the ! I .! i t 5 8 Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence of DW. 1 and the documents filed along with it found favour with the repayment of entire amount. In cases of acquittal, unless there are compelling reasons to interfere with the orders of acquittal, the appellate Court calnot reverse the finding of acquittal. The repayment of loan is borne by record. 9 There are no compelling reasons to interfere'with the hndings of the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused

10. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal 2 The lll Additionat Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal 3. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the stite of rerangana at 4. One CC to Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate tOpUCl 5 One CC to Sri S Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] ADK @1 HIGH COURT DATED:0810112025 , JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1447 of 2010 1HE S4 o ( { o/ uns zffi z t rf,'\ DISMISSING THE CRLA ,{ rq 0