In Rawi Sharrna v. State lGovernment of NCT of Delhif and aaotherr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held t

1. The State of A.P., rep by P.P.,, High Court of A P , Hyderabad' 2. Narender,, S/o.Ch Satyanarayana, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business R/o.C/o. Laxmi Narsimha Kirana General Stores, H'No 10-3-255' ManikbhavanRoad,Shivajinagar,NizamabadTown,NizamabadDistrict. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI M. VIVEKANANDA REDDY' ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Gounsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUSHPINDER KAUR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT :J ,/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDEII ,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 736 oF 2011 JUDGMENT: This c:rirri.-ral appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the acquittai rer orded by the VII Additional Ses;sions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Eir>dhal, in Crl.A.No. 12 of '2OO7 u.hereb1, the learned Judge set :rside :he Judgment of convrction passed by _he Judicial magistrate of I.:rst Class, Bodhan, in CC.No.5B..i ol 2OO4 and acquitted thc 12,: respondent herein for the offe,nce unCer Section 138 of the .\ieg, rt,able Instruments Act.

2. The aplrelirrnt who is the comprainant before tre oourt berow filed privatr: r:r;rnpJaint against the 2"a respond,lnt 1br the offence under Secl-iorr 1 3B of the Negotiabie Instruments; Ac .

3. The case c I r.he complainant is that the ac,-:us,rr1 ,rsed to purchase spi<:e:s fiom his companrr over a perio<1 of time on credit basis. The rlrt:rtiincling rvas Rs. l,4g,996l_. The accuse 11 issued a post dated itJlc ([r.re dated 1 I .LO.2OO4, for the said an Lount. The said cheque r'''hcrr pr-esented for crearance vzas re.turr-red unpaid for insufficient flrn ls. Having issued a notice, since the acc -rsed failed to pay the afil,lu rr covered by the cheque, complrrint u,a; [i1ed. 2

4. The trial Court,having examined the evidence placed on record by the complainant, convicted the accused.

5. The accused then preferred, appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds. i) Exs.P7 to Pl1 -which are copies of invoices ftorn 2O.12.2OO3 to 1O.03.2OO4, do not disclose that the goods were supplied orl credit basis. ii) Apcount books of the complainant firm rn'ere not produced to show that the goods were supplied on credit basis. iii) Though the goods were supplied from 20'1'2'2OO3 to 10.03.2004, however, the version that the amount was not demanded and that only a post-dated cheque was accepted to be repaid in October 2004 cannot be believed. iv) The counterfoil of cheque dated 29-10.2003 (Ex'Rl) and the version of the accused that the cheque was issued in blank is probablised.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that once the issuance of cheque and signature on the cheque are admitted, presumption arises ald the accused has i I t I i 3 failed to rt:b,r1 the presumption except stating 1.hat rh€ cheque was issued as sl.r r(: \ 7 . The zLcc',lsed cal rebut the presumption unrjer Section 139 of the Neeotiatrle 1ns1.r-ents Act on the basir; of the eyidence of the compliti,i;rr. ,nd also the documents plac.d on rr:cord by the complainzrnl. B. The reariur.ring given by the learned Session,s Jr rdge is that there is no tr 3r:tton about goods being issued on cre dit basis in Exs.P7 to [)] I r r an1. other documents filed by the c tmplainant. No books tf erccounts of the complainant firm were produced to establish tltat t-.e c:redit u,as given and the goods u.t:re ;upplied.

9. Durirrq rr{)rmal course of business ..l,hile ; naintaining accounts, i[ c.:dit is given, the sar'e shall tre refle:tecl in the accounts cf ,1:r' firm giving the credit. Further, the a:cused has produced t-.(' ( (,rtnterfoil of the cheque Ex.Rl u,hicL u-es produced before the rl)r.,trrt. According to the counterfoil, :he sairt cheque in question n':ls i:;r;.red in October- 2003, itself.

10. The S,r:ss;ir;.ts Court on the basis of ali the ttirc rmstances, has collectiit:lt ir,-ned an opinion that the cheqrre v,as ssued as a surety. 4

11. In Rawi Sharrna v. State lGovernment of NCT of Delhif and aaotherr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with al appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's vie',\' 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.

12. In Ghureg Lat a. State oJ tlttar Pradesh,2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to several .Iudgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquitt-al, held at paraTO- as follows: "70. In the light of the aboue, the High Cou-rt ond other appellate Courts should follotu the uell-::ettled pinciples crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to ouemtle or othenuise disturb the tial court's acquittal:

1. The appetlate court rnay onlg ouenule or othentise disturb tLe tial court's ocquittat if it ha-s "uery substantiol and compelling reasons" for dcing so. A number of instances arise in LDhich the appellate court uould haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to discard tLLe tiol court's d.ecision. "Very substantiol and compelling reasons" eist uthen: i) The trial court's conclusion uLith regard to the facts is palpablg urong: t 120221 8 Sup.eme court Cases 535 ' 1zOOa1 tO supreme court cases 450 lou.t: nzis car-;.119 \., c f justice " ; it l'h,? tit:ti court's decision uas based on ar. etr.)neo s uietu of ti ) I'he truLl court's judgment is likelg to result in .91raue . . it) 'l'hL: ,tntire approach oJ the trial court in deetinq Luith the u, T'he tnnl court's judgment was mani]bsttt, ur just and. -lh<: 'ial court has ignored the euidence ot mi.;read. the mater,.ct'. et)rc)ence or ha^s ignored mateial doar:mer,ts I lrc dging declon tt,'n.<."eport of the ballistic Ex.per1, etc. euicLen:t, u,ts pntentlg illegal; unreasc'n.ct.!tle . Ln) rrri,r'7 h.is ,r.st is intended to be illustratiue, not exhau:;tiue 2. l h:' . Lppellate court must oluaAs giue proper Lu,:ight and" consid.crcLtiott o the findings of the triaL court. 3 tj't t'r' rtasonable uietus can be reached. one tlta leads to acquittttl, tlre otlrcr to conuiction the High Courts/ a;_,yte trte courts must tlt.te ir, l ructr,tr of the occ1lsed."

13. Since tlr : findings of the learned Se ssic,ns Judge afe probable, [)ru,](.nr ard based on record his 'indings cannot be interfered .r,ith

14. Accordinsli., Criminal Appeal is dismissecl \ //TRUE COPY// SD/- B SATYAVATHI JOIN]' REGISTRAR -1)"- SEC-r'lON OFFTCER To, 'I The Vll Additir:r.ar sessions Judge (FTC) Nizamabad at Bcdharr. (with records) at Hyderahad[(]tlTl

2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan. 3' Two ccs o rh': pubric prosecutor, state of i"trngrn" High cc urt Buirdings 4. One CC tc Sri F arsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, Advocate tOpUCl I 9n" 99 l! Sri Fr shpinder Kaur,-Advocate tOpuCl- 6. Two CD C cpie s Plp/gh e,,\ \rI HIGH COURI' DATED:2410312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.73ti ot 2011 -_;:==. & i'-::r,r () o t ,o * il 3 liit 1106 * ,i;l I - r- -i:-:::1:: DISMISSING THE APPEAL +- ( \?-l) 3 3 I i I I I I I