IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 4 OF 2023 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C to set aside the Calendar and Judgment dated 09-11-2022 passed in C.C.No.410 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, West Godavari District and consequently to convict the 1®* respondent/accused in CC.No.410 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, West Godavari District. Between: Vardhineedi Sri Ramanjaneyulu, S/o.Veeraswamy, Male, Hindu, Aged 33 years. Business, Medapadu, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District. ...APELLANT/COMPLAINANT AND 1. Yeeda Sasibhushan, S/o.Jashuva, Male Hindu, Aged 37 years, R/o.H.No;98, Road No.4, NearSaibaba Temple, Near Stella College, P and T Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the AppellantrSRI. P L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1; SRI ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN (AMICUS CURIAE) Counsel for RespondentNo.2: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: o APHC010722792022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special OriginalJurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND twenty FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 4/2023 Between: 1.VARDHINEEDI SRI RAMANJANEYULU, S/O.VEERASWAMY, HINDU, AGED 33 YEARS, BUSINESS, MEDAPADU, MANUAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. MALE, ELAMANCHILI APELLANT AND 1.YEEDA SASIBHUSHAN, S/O.JASHUVA, MALE HIDNU, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O.H.Nd.98, ROAD NO.4, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, NEAR STELLA COLLEGE, P AND T COLONY, VIJAYAVVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT: :..RESPONDENT/ACCUSED^^^ 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESP6DENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): i :ARRMdLU SAI NAVEEN 2.AMICUS CURIAE 3. Public PROSECUTOR (Ap) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Impugning the judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed in C.C.No.410 of 2017 on the file of the Court of li AdditionaUunior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol acquitting the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ^ the Appellant/Complainant preferred the present appeal. For short ‘the N.I.Act’ 2 o The case of the Complainant is that, the Accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him by way of hand loan. Thereafter, inspite of 2. several demands of the Complainant, the Accused had issued a cheque bearing No.693337, dated 05.09.2007 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Vijayawada. On presentation of the said cheque before State Bank of Hyderabad, Palakol branch for collection, the same was returned as there were no sufficient funds in the account of the Accused vide return memo dated 11.09.2017. As such, on 03.10.2007 the Complainant got issued a legal notice to the Accused demanding him to pay the cheque amount, and having received the said notice, the Accused neither paid any amount nor gave any reply to the Complainant. Hence, the complaint. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the Complainant, he was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. After hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Magistrate found the Accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of the Code. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Complainant. 5. Heard Sri P.L.Narasimhara Rao, learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant and Sri A.Sai Naveen, learned Amicus Curie on behalf of Accused. 3 Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the learned Magistrate failed to see that the Complainant discharged his initial burden to establish his case. It is submitted that the Complainant proved his case by examining himself as P.W.1 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.6 on his behalf. Learned counsel would finally submit that the learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the Accused. Hence, prayed for quashment of the case against the 6. Petitioners. Per contra, learned Amicus Cur/e Would submit that the existehce of legally enforceable debt between the Complainant and the Accused has not been proved. It is further submitted that the date of borrOwal of the said arhount has hot been mentioned in the complaint. It is Submitted that the financial capacity of the Complainant to lend such an amount, is not proved, in support of his contentions, learned Am/cus Gur/e has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibelsappa A bare perusal of the impugned judgment would disclose that the learned trial Judge acquitted the Accused from the alleged dffence bn the ground that the Complainant had failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, the date and place of borrowal of the said amount by the Accused from the Cornplainant have not been mentioned either in the complaint or in thb chief examination As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1, he clearly admitted that he maintains account books of his business and reflect all the 7 a. affidavit of P.W.1 - 20I9 (4) Supreme 366 o transaction details therein. He further admitted that the account books do not show the present transaction. He further admitted that he has no documents to show that he gave the said amount to the Accused. He further admitted that, the does not know the contents of the Ex.P.5 legal notice. He has not filed any document to show that he was in possession of Rs.3,00,000/- on the date of alleged lending. In such circumstances, the Complainant had failed to prove the date of lending the said amount. As such, as rightly submitted by the learned Am/cus Curie, the Complainant had failed to prove the legally enforceable debt between him and the Accused. In view of the contradictory statements of P.W.1 in his chief and cross examinations, and the ignorance of the contents of Ex.P.5 legal notice, it can be held that the Complainant had failed to establish the existence of legally enforceable debt between him and Further, the Complainant also failed to prove his financial capacity to lend Rs.3,00,000/- to the Accused on the alleged date. In view of the above discussion, in the absence of the legally enforceable debt between the Complainant and the Accused, there is no to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. the Accused. 9. reason 10. Pendina nniscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. — — SD/-S.V.S.R. MORTHT JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To . The I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-l Additional Judicial Palakoi, West Godavari District, (with records) 1 Magistrate of I Class »■ One CC to SRI. P L NARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI. ARRABOLU SAI iStAVEEN, (AMICUS CURIAE)[OPUC] 3. Two GO'S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 4. 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies RDB (RDB) HIGH COURT DATED:09/04/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.4 of 2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED