The High Court · 2025

2. The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court of - Judicature at Hyde"rabad forthe State of Telangana and the State of Andhra . Pradesh Hyderabad. RESPOOENTS Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. P RAGHAVENDRA RAO Counsel for the ResPondent No.1 : SRIS. RAM SHARMA (NA) Counsel for the ResPondent No.2 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.669 OF 2016 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant challenging the Judgment dated 10.09.2015 in Crl.A.No.797 of 2013 on the tite of the II Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminat Courts, Narnpally, Hyderabad, whereby the conviction imposed against rcspondcnt No.l/accused vide Judgment dated

04.09.20 13 in C.C.No.59 ol 20 li on the file of the learned I Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipal Court), I{yderabad, is set aside and acquittcd accused fbr thc ot-fcnce under Section 138 of N.l.Act'

2. For thc sake of cottvenicrrce, the parties hereinafter are referred as arrayed in C.C.

3. The nutshell of the case is that the accused entered into development agreement dated Il.O7.2021 with the complainant in respect of property bearing Municipat No.1-9-34l4/A, constructed at Plot Nos.l I and l2l5 situated at Ward No.l, Ramnagar, Zamisthanpur, I{yderabad. As pcr the development agreement, the 2 said area shall be shared each by the accused altrl thc complainant. Thcrefore, the contplainant has to pay Rs.g,00,000,, torvarcls interest Iicc security. As oer the said agreeme nt. the corrplr r rant paict Rs.l.00 lakh as tokcn advance. When the conrplainant s ready to pay Rs.7,00,000/-. he asked the accused to cxecutLr he dcvelopment agreement. But, accused did not corne forward t( txecutc the said development agreement as agrced carlier. Therelbr: the complainant got issued a notice datcd 2 t. 12.20,I ro the accusc(l ; rtinq rhat that he is rcady to pay the balancc arnount of Rs.7.00 lakhs r rd requcsted him to execute the said dcveiopmcnt agreetncnt. l.irt. said notice was returned viith an endor.sc,rent .not claimed'. Latcr. .r cused addressed a Ietter to the conrplairrarrt stating tlrrt ..as r,r. vour desire, devclopment agree,rent datcd l1.07.20 lr stan<rs cancellcd and interest free deposit token advancc ol lls. 1.00 Irtlts lirlr: cheque bearing No.6359t6 is herervith r.eturnecl',. Witl the said Ietter, accused sent a cheque bearing No.635916 lbr a sun rlRs. 1,00,000/_ drawn on Andhra Bank, Ramnagar Branch, tou,ards r :pal,rnent of the advance amouut. Then thc conrplainant prcsentc(l tlr r s21fl cl_reque in hi.s banLi-e., State Bank of Hydcratrad, Chikadpaili. I Iyderabad3d .) the same was dishonored with an endorsement "insufficient funds"' Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 30'05'2012 demanding accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days' For which accused, issued reply dated 0l-06.2012 stating that unless the complainant withdraws the civil suit fited against him, he witl not pay the said cheque amount. Hence the complaint.

4. After fotlowing the due proccdute and after considering the entire evidence both oral ancl docutneutary evidence, learned trial court recorded the convictiou against accused for thc offence under Section 138 o{' N.l.Act. He rvas scnteuced to undergo simple imprisonment tbr a period ot' one ycar aucl also to pay a fine of Rs.5,0001. Aggrieved by the judgment ol-the trial Court, accused preferredanappealvideCrl.A.No.TgTof20ls.Afterconsideringthe entire material availabie on record, learned Sessions Judge held that the complainant is pursuing civil as well as criminal proceedings and the entire civil case is based on Ex.Pl/cheque. Thereflore, the liability of accused is diluted, when a clrequc was prcsented and when it was ) bounced. With the said observation, learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and acquitted hirn I 4

5. In cascs of acquittal, the Hori'ble Supreme ( tr urt in Ravi Shsrnta v, State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anoil crt, hcld that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the a1 1 ellate couii has to consider whether the trial court's vicw can be tern rt cl as a possible o,e, particularly when evidence on record has been a^rr ysecr- 'r'he rcason is that an ordel of acquittal adds up to the presurrf t on ol. innoccncc in {avour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has o bc relativcly slow in reversing the order of the trial coutt relldering acr1.t ttal.

6. lo Ghurey Lal v. State of Lrrtar praicsli I r : l{on.blc Suprcme court a fter rel-erring to several Judgrncnts rcgarding trc scttrcd principres of law and the powers of appellate Cou$ in l.cr,, rsing thc ci-rlci- of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: t ."70. ln thc lighl of the ubove, thc Higtt ( t ,rt ond (,thcr appclla.te Courts should .fottou, the u,"ii_.r"r,,, I ptirttiplcs cry.stallizcd.by number o[.ludgmcnts if it is goitt.s t r o't,t,rrtlc rtr ollt riisc disturb lhc trial court s oc(luiltal. Thc appellate cout.t ntov onl.y oycrrul,, tr.6ilt<,rtt.isc . disturb the trial court's acquillal if it lrus ',t.crt, t,r t.starttiul urtd conpclling reasons " lor doing .so. A numbcr of instant:es urise in y,hich tlu: t,J .tclkrtt, tttttt nould havc "very substaniial and contpeliinr ,rasotts:. o discard the trial court's clccisktn. .,[ir-y s,,t, totrtirrl orr! conrpclling reasons " exisl u.,hcrr. I (1022) 8 Suprellr., ('ourt Cascs 536 (200S) I0 Suprernc Court Cases 450 ) \ 5 i) The trial 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| n miscatiage qf j us tice " : " fiial court's iudgtnent is likely to result in "grave it) The entire approach oJ'the trial court in dealing with the evidence w(1s patenlly illegal; The trial ctturt's judgment was manifcstllt unjust {rnd t unreasonable,' vi) The trial courl has ignoretl the et'iclcnce or misread the maierial evidence or has ignorcd material documents like dying declarations/report o.f the ballistic arpert, etc' - - t,ii) This list is intended to Ise illuslrative' not exhaustivc' 2. The appellare cottrt nusL alv a-vs git'e Ttroper weight and consideration o thc .findings of lhe triol courl 3. If tu'o reasonable t'iev's can hc rcochcd- onc that leatls to acquittal, the olher to cottyiction the High Courts/appellale colrts mtsl rulc in.fatour ol thc acatsed " 7 . Perusal of the materiat avaitable on record and the submissions made by the learned counse[ on eithcr side would reveal that there are omissions with regard to thc communication took place happened between both the complainant and accused atier execution of development agreement and receipt olcheque' There is no whisper as t i to why the complainant requested for cancellation of the development agreement and how the complainant made payrnent of Rs'1'00 lakhs to the accused. However, as per the averments, accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- torvards repayment of advance arnount. In supporl of his contentious, complainant got examined I . ) 6 himself as PW.L As rightly pointed out by the l:arned Sessions Judge, the complainant frled the suit on 2g.l2.2}ll which is rhrec days after the date of cheque i.e., 26.12.2011 and rheque returncd rnemo was issued on 04.05.2012. Thus, it reveals that the intention of the complainant is that he wants to pursue both c ivil as well as criminal proceedings, which is not rnaintainable, an,j the entire civil casc is based on Ex.P t cheque. Therefore, the findin r r of the lcamed Sessions Judge are rvell reasoned and interl.erence ( t thls court is uriwarrantcd. Thereiore, the present appeat is liabte to t c dismissed. 8 Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed f,r:.-- ii i isceitar leous petlttons, if any, pending shalI sta cl closed rI SD/.N.CHAI,I ]RA SEKHAR RAO DI PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII iecrrou oFFrcER To, Nampally. Hyderabad. '

1. The llAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Crrm r al Courts, ? 9nu CC to SRt p RAGHAVENDRARAOAdvocatetop,ll 3 Qne CC to THE pUBLtC PROSECUiOR, irlq-tCorrr ro, t re State of . Telan_gana. Hyderabad. [OUT] I 9nu CC ro SRt S RAM SHAdMA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies { ( \A- HIGH COURT DATED:2810712025 I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.669 of 2016 ,( 4 I \\ \'\:. DISMTSSING THE APPEAL \s- t\ ))