IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY JHE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \\ I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 368 OF 2023 Between; Prathipati Srihari, S/o Venkata Subba Rao, Aged about 55 Cultivation, Resident of D.No.1-8-8/ 10, Sriramanagar Godavari District. years, Occ. Kakinada, East ...APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT AND 1. Nanipalli Siva Rama Krishna, S/o Chandra Rao, Aged about 43 Occ. Business, Resident of Main road, Yerupalli Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. years ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C against the judgment passed in C.C.No.94/2017, dated 04-08-2022 on the file of the II Additional Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Counsel for the Appellant for the Respondents : M/S.K.PRIYANKA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT ,■»’* ' : SRI. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following; V. APHC010203512023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 368/2023 Between: 1.PRATHIPATI SRIHARI, S/0 VENKATA SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF D.NO.1-8-8/ SRIRAMANAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 10 ...APELLANT AND 1.NANIPALLI SIVA RAMA KRISHNA, S/0 CHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD YERUPALLI VILLAGE E.G.DISTRICT. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, PROSECUTOR, HIGH AMARAVATHI. ...RESPODENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1.VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) (MA) 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Impugning the judgment dated 04.08.2022 passed in C.C.No.94 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada acquitting the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881' the Appellant/Complaina nt preferred the present appeal. 3. The case borrowed an amount 15.01.2011, the Accused of the Complainant is that, on of Rs.10,00,000/- from him, agreeing to repay the same and executed a promissory note on the even with interest @ 24% per annum demands made by the Complainant, the Accused had issued a date. On the .0318535 dated 25.06.2013 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- cheque bearing No drawn on ICICI Bank, Ramachandrapuram towards part satisfaction of the of the said cheque before State Bank of pronote debt. On presentation Hyderabad, Main Road Branch, Kakinada for collection on 26.06.2013, the 27.06.2013 with an endorsement “Funds dishonoured on same was 04:07.2013 the Complainant got issued a legal Accused demanding him to pay the cheque amount, but the mala fide intention evaded to receive the same and returned Insufficient”. As such, on notice to the Accused with a the said notice and had not paid amount. Hence, the complaint, behalf of the Complainant, he was During the course of trial, on examined as P.W.1 and got examined the attesters of the pro note as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. On behalf of the defence. Accused 4. was examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 on his behalf. After hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, found the Accused not guilty of the offence punishable learned Magistrate For short ‘the N.l.Act’ H % 3 under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of the Code. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Complainant. Heard Sri Vutupalli Appellant/Complainant. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1/Accused. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 5. 6. Rajanna, learned counsel for the 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. Learned counsel would further submit that the Accused borrowed the amount from the Complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. It is submitted that the Complainant proved his case by examining P.Ws.1 to 3 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.6 on his behalf. Learned counsel would further submit that the Accused had not taken any steps to send Ex.P.1 cheque to the expert to prove that his signature was forged. Learned counsel would finally submit that the learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the Accused. Hence, prayed for quashment of the case against the Petitioners. 7. 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 9. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment would disclose that the learned trial Judge acquitted the Accused from the alleged offence on the ground that the Complainant had failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. As seen from the material on record, though it is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant that the Accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the Complainant, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed a promissory note in his favour, no civil suit has been filed by the Complainant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt between him and the Accused. The evidence on record would disclose that, the Complainant examined 10. himself as P.W.1 and got examined the attestors of the promissory note as P.Ws.2 and 3. However, as seen from the evidence of P.W.2, who is the attestor of the pronote, he pleaded ignorance of the alleged transaction and did not support the evidence of P.W.1 in any manner. Further, P.W.3, who is another attestor of the subject pronote, could not even say the name of P.W.1. The evidence of P.VA/.I is not corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 regarding the material particulars that the Accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and executed the pronote in their presence. On the other hand, the defence introduced by the Accused is that, he and one Pathuri Satyanarayana together were doing construction business and in that view. said Satyanarayana had obtained some signed empty cheques and pronotes from him and subsequently, in view of the differences arose between both of them, said Satayanarayana pressed the empty pronote and signed cheque and got filed the present complaint through the Complainant. 5 In view of the inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, the Accused succeeded in rebutting the presumption of legally enforceable debt. In the absence of the legally enforceable debt between the Complainant and the Accused, there is no 11. reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SOI- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. One CC^to Sri Vytupallj Rajanna Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. THREE CD COPIES psr TAC ■} HIGH COURT DATE0:05/03/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.368 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL