Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P PANDURANGA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI G VASANTHA RAYUDU REPRESENTED BY M SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI E GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.468 OF 2016 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is frled by the appellant/complainant seeking to set aside the judgment dated O1.O5.2015 in Crl.A.No.S92 of 2Ol2 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the appellate Court') by setting aside the judgment dated 17.O9.2012 passed in C.C.No.64 of 2Ol2 (old C.C.No.726 of 2009) on the hle of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajendranagar ([or short, 'the trial CourtJ.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in C.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an Ex- Service Man retired in 2O05, that accused is Stock Broker having membership in Hyderabad Stock Exchange, that since 2OO2 he started investing his money into stocks through the accused, tl.at lill 20O5 accused used to issue statement to him. But, thereafter accused did not issue statement nor delivered shares. Then tre got suspicion and demanded the accused lor delivery of shares. Then accused told him that he disposed of shares of the complainant due to ) financial probl,:ms and gave a certiflcate about Particu..ars of shares sold by him and the amount due to the complainant wirich was to a tune of Rs.1,32,93,OOO/- as on 31.03.2008, that accuse<l promised to clear the said amount with interest but failed to keep up his promise, then on 07.o3.2009 accused executed a memorandum of understanding rnder which he promised to clear all the dues by

31.03.2009 anc issued 16 cheques for an aggregate amount of Rs.50,00,O0O/ - towards discharge of partial liability, that when presented all thc cheques were bounced for want of sufficient funds. Later after issuing notice and complying wittr other formal:.ties he hled cornplaint be [ti, e the learned Magistrate.

4. On appearzLnce, charges under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1.881 (for short, T.[.I. Act') were framed, rezld over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty aod claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of tlee accused person, prosecution examirred PW.l and marked Exs.P.1 to P.41. Orr behalf of the defence, DW.lvas examined and Exs.Dl to D5 were marked

6. After hearing the counsel on both sides and upon cc'nsidering the evicience on i'ecord, the trial Court found the accused gui, ty for the 3 offence punishable under Section 138 of N.l. Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and also directed to pay Rs.37,O0,OO0/- towards compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed Crl.A.No.592 of 2Ol2 before the learned Appellate Court.

7. In the appeal, the appellate Court, upon re-appreciating ttre evidence available on record observed that the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt and it cannot be held that an offence under Section 138 of N.l. Act is made out and the learned trial Court seems to have been mislead and carried-away by his capacity to compare the signatures and came to the conclusion about the genuineness of signatures of Ex.P33 and P41. Considering the danger involved in doing such an adventure, when it is open to the complainant to get that work done through expert which he did not do and considering the inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of complainant as to when Ex.P33 and 4l were executed and as to when cheques were issued and as to why none of the attestors of the documents were examined to corroborate the claim of the complainant when accused denied his signatures it is not safe to accept the case of ) .,! the complainant-llence, allowed the criminal appeat by setting asi{e 4 the conviction and sentence of imprisonment and order or compensation passed against the accused in C.C.No.64 of 2OL2 and accordingly, acquitted the accused.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ complainant and leamed counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

9. [rarned counsel appearing for the appellant conten(ted that the trial Court has rilihtly come to the conclusion that non examination of ttre accused is fatal to the accused, but the appellate Cor:rt without taking into consi<ieratron the ingredients which are to be proved under Section 138 of I\r.1. Act has erroneously passed the jurigment by acquitting the ac<:used. Hence seeks to allow the present criminal appeal by setting :rside the judgment dated O1.05.2O12 passed by the learned appellate ()ourt in Crl.A.No.S92 of 2OL2.

10. [rarned cornsel appearing for respondent No 1 would contended that the appellate Court upon careful scrutiny of the material available rn record have rightly passed the judg:rrent and interference of this Court at this stage is not warranted. He::ce seeks to dismiss the prese nt criminal appeal. l I I 5

11. Recording tJle submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record and the judgments passed by both the learned trial Court and appellate Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned judgment dated 01.05.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.S92 of 2Ol2 by the learned appellate Court

12. Accordingly, tJ-is Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous Pctitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judicial Magistrate First Class Court-|, Ra.iendranagar, Ranga Reddy

2. The X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy

3. The Station House Officer, Rajender Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri P Panduranga Rao, Advocate IOPUCI 6. One CC to Sri G Vasantha Rayudu, Advocate [OPUCI 7, Two CD Copies ABK,/PSL \c^'' HIGH COURT DATED: 281071202! JUDGMENT CRLA.No.468 oi' 2iii 6 t, I 25 0[1 M .? a ,i )j * Dt S i,a\i()P' (:() ,+1:, DISMISSING OF HE CRLA \o ceYlnA #{,