IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI ot vy WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE !Q ^ .i| P:/ A • - ft '■k "'*1/ •cB-^ CO •k PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1264 OF 2008 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment dated made in CC.No. 31 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of 1®* Class, Filer, dated 29.02.2008. Between: Smt. G.Sarala Kumari, W/o. G.R.Purushotham, aged about 43 years, R/o. Door NO. 3-76, Paterl Street, Filer Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Appellant/Complainant AND 1. G.Surendranatha Reddy, S/o. Sidda Reddy, aged about 43 years, R/o. Door No.3-57, L.B.S.Road, Piler, Chittoor District ...Respondent/Accused 2. The State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri R Ramachandra Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: Reddy APHC010211812008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.1264 OF 2008 [3327] Between: Smt. G. Sarala Kumari ...APPELLANT AND G. Surendranatha Reddy and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: 1.HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondents: 1. R RAMACHANDRA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the complainant against the Judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed in CO No.31 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler, whereby and whereunder respondent No.1 herein/Accused found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Nl Act’), accordingly, he was acquitted of the said offence. was 2 SRK, J CrlANo.1264 of 2008 2. Case of the complainant, briefly, is as follows. The accused indebted an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, and towards repayment of the said debt, he gave cheque bearing No.026056, dated 06.10.2001, for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, drawn on Andhra Bank, Filer. When the complainant presented the said cheque on 27.11.2001 in Andhra Bank, Filer for collection, the same was returned to the complainant on the same day with an endorsement “Account closed”. Then the complainant got issued a notice to the accused on 01.12.2001 demanding him to repay the amount of Rs.50,000/-. On receipt of the said notice, the accused gave reply with all false and frivolous allegations. Hence, the present complaint has been filed. The said complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Filer, as CC No.31 of 2002. 3. On appearance of the accused, after furnishing copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.F.C., he was examined under Section 251 Cr.F.C. He denied the allegations, when read over and explained to him in Telugu, pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried. 4. 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1264 of 2008 On behalf of the complainant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined 5. and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and Exs.XI and X2. 6. After closure of the complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of complainant’s witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. 7. However, the accused filed a written statement stating as follows: Husband of the complainant was running a dish in the name and style of “Chandana Cable Net Works” at LBS Road, Piler and the complainant and her husband offered to sell the said Chandana Cable Net Works” to him for Rs. 10,00,000/- and received Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance from him under an agreement of sale dated 12.05.2001. Vide an agreement dated 06.08.2001, the complainant and her husband handed over the dish connections to the accused by receiving the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cheque and cash, but they failed to deliver some materials such as D-coders, fan, stabilizer. speaker/announcer, TV stand, 4 receivers, 7 amplifiers and 2 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1264 of 2008 equipment stands, etc. When the accused approached the Sub- Inspector of Police, Filer Police Station, the husband of the complainant was called and directed to deliver the articles to the accused as per the agreement dated 06.08.2001. When the husband of the complainant demanded more money stating that he sold the cable network for lower price, during the mediation, the Sub-Inspector of Police threatened the accused to issue a blank cheque, so that he would settle the issue. As per the directions of the Sub-Inspector, the accused gave blank signed cheque of Andhra Bank, Filer in the month of August 2001 to him. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police directed the accused to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and her husband and the SI of Police also directed the complainant and her husband to handover the materials to the accused. When the accused refused to pay the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, as he already paid the agreed amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the complainant and her husband, with the help of the Sub-Inspector of Police, fabricated Ex.PI cheque with dishonest intention. There is no legally enforceable liability by the accused to the complainant and Ex.P1 cheque is not issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt. Hence, the accused has not committed any offence under Section 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1264 of 2008 % 138 of the Nl Act, as Ex.PI cheque was obtained by the complainant and her husband by coercion. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of entire oral and 8. documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Nl Act and, accordingly. acquitted him, vide impugned judgment dated 29.02.2008 on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the accused and on the other hand the accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 138 of the Nl Act by eliciting admissions in the cross-examination of PW.1. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, the complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Heard. Perused the record. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a 10. presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1264 of 2008 though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. are 11. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another .v the State of Punjab\ wherein it held as follows: (para 8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference was AIR 1962 SC 439 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1264of2008 with an order of acquittal being based only on ‘compelling and substantial reasons’ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, ‘compelling reasons’ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words ‘compelling reasons’. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on ‘compelling reasons’ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusl^ reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 12. PW.1 deposed in her chief examination that herself and her husband sold dish antenna for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused and the accused paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and for the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque. In the cross-examination, PW.1 differed from her K- 8 SRK, J CrlANo.1264 of 2008 version in her examination-in-chief, admitting that herseif and her husband soid away the Chandana accused on 12.05.2001 for received Rs.5,00,000/- Cable Net Work to the an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and an advance and executed as an agreement of sale in favour of the accused, that they received She further admitted remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- executed an agreement of sale Ex.P5 on 06.08.2001 in favour of the accused and agreed to deliver the entire dish and connections of Chandana Cable Net Work on the same day. She stated that the accused handed over Ex.P1 cheque at her house contained in Ex.P1 belongs to her husband, that she does not know whether the and the writing She further stated amount of Rs.50,000/- was due from the accused towards balance of sale Chandana Cable Net Work consideration of as mentioned in the legal notice or in the compiaint. The evidence of PW.1 clearly goes to show that the accused paid entire sale consideration to PW.1 and her no balance of sale consideration. When there is no balance of sale consideration, there is no necessity for the accused to issue Ex.P1 cheque to PW.1 towards balance husband and there is of sale consideration. The clear admission of PW.1, as aforesaid, goes to show that PW.1 is not certain to say whether the accused 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1264 of 2008 indebted to her or not. From the admissions made in the cross- examination of PW.1, it can be concluded that there is no debt due by the accused to the complainant which enforceable. is legally 13. A perusal of the entire evidence of PW.1 clearly goes to show that she herself is not certain about what amount was due by the accused to herself and her husband, as she took two different versions and also admitted that Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the accused on 12.05.2001 and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the accused on 06.08.2001. she admitted the payment of entire sale When consideration of Chandana Cable Net Work by the accused, absolutely there is no amount due to be paid by the accused towards the balance of sale consideration of Chandana Cable Net Work. So, basing the evidence of PW.1, it can safely be said that the complainant failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the accused. on 14. PW.1 further stated that as per the recitals in Ex.P5, the DD amount was paid to the accused, but she does not remember the date of payment to the accused. It is not mentioned in the recitals Kits. '=5^ 10 SRK, J CrlANo.1264 of 2008 of Ex.P5 that the DD amount clearly goes to show that husband receives DD was paid to the accused. Ex.P5 as and when the complainant and her amount and paid to the accused before 06.10.2001, the cheque for Rs.50,000/-, which was given by the accused to PW.3, can be handed over to PW.I and her husband. IS an agreement said to have lies on her to prove pay channels was received by When PW.1 relies on Ex.P5, which i been executed by the accused, the burden that the DD amount from the herself and her husband and the accused, in turn they have taken same was handed over to the cheque from PW.3 and presented the same before the bank for coiiection. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove the above said fact. When there i no evidence proving the contents of Ex.P5 IS the same is not presumed that PW.1 and accused and as per the terms of Ex.PS, PW.3 handed over Ex.P1 cheque to PW.1. binding on the accused and it cannot be her husband gave DD amount to the 15. Offence under Section 138 of the Nl Act would when the cheque was issued for legally enforceable the same was issued with dishonest intention attract only liability and to dishonour the same. In the case on hand, as the complainant failed to prove I 11 ^ , SRK, J Crl.A.No.1264 of 2008 that Ex.Pl cheque enforceable debt was issued by the accused for the legally on the ground of the dishonor of cheque account closed” itself would not make the of the NIAct. accused liable for the offence under Section 138 16. From the above, it pleaded by the and there is liable for the offence under can safely be inferred that the defence cused in his written statement is quite probable no legally enforceable debt or liability to make him Section 138 of the NIAct. 17. FW.3 also stated husband sold “Chandana Rs. 10,00,000/- that on 12.05.2001 Cable Net Work PW.1 and her to the accused for and sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- if and Bi remaining amount of Rs.5,00 000/ - was also paid by the on 06.08.2001 under accused to PW.1 and her husband sale and he attested the an agreement of said agreement. 18. PW.4 deposed about stated that he do the contents of Ex.P5 and further not know whether PW.1 received DD from the Star Package whether they paid the and her husband on or before 06.10.2001 and same to the accused or not. When such is complainant to show the case, his evidence iIS not helpful to the i itii' 12 SRK J CrlANo.1264 012008 that herself and her husband gave the DD amount to the accused and taken Ex.P1 from PW.3 as per the terms of Ex.P5 and presented the same for collection before the bank. 19. The entire evidence is not corroborating with the version of There are no averments in the complaint about the sale transaction of Dish Antenna by PW.1 and her husband to the accused, the amount of sale consideration and also the PW.1. amount due towards sale consideration by the accused. In the absence of the same, the simple averment in the complaint that the accused is due an.amount of Rs.50,000/- is not sufficient to prove the case of the complainant. So also, no document pertaining to the sale transaction between herself and the accused is filed to prove the existence of legally enforceable liability on the part of the accused. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate is on correct lines and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 13 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1264 of 2008 The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed in CC No.31 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Filer. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. any. Sd/-V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of 1 records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri R Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi [OUT] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section Amaravathi 6. Two CD Copies St Class, Filer, Chittoor District (with Pradesh at High Court of Andhra Pradesh at stu RAM HIGH COURT DATED:23/04/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.1264 of 2008 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL