CRLRC/554/2012 of KULKURI RAMCHANDRA REDDY Vs SRI KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS AND ANOTEHRS on 29 December 2023

: Judgement

The Court made the following

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIE E.V.VENUGO PALCRIMI NAt REVIS ON CASE N0.554 0F 2012

ORDER

1 Heard Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Srivenkateswar Rao Gudapati, rearned counser for the first respondent andsri Vizarath Ali, the rearned Assistant pubric prosecutor appearing for theState - 2nd respondent.

2 This criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.p.C, isfiled aggrieved by the judgment dated 3r.01.2012 passed in crl.A.No.24 of2011 on the file of the Court of the rearned II Additionar District &Sessions Judge, (FTC) at Sangareddy, wherein and whereby the appealpreferred by the petitioner herein was dismissed confirming the .iudgmentdated 03.02'2011 passed by the rearned ludiciar First crass Magistrate,Sangareddy in C.C.No.263 of 2009 was confirmed.

3 The petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the firstpetitioner herein filed a private complaint against the firstherein filed a private complaint against the firstfiled a private complaint against the firsta private complaint against the firstprivate complaint against the firstthe firstfirstrespondent herein before the court of the Additionar Judiciar First CrassMagistrate, sangareddy for the offence punishable under sections 13g and142 of N.I.Act. The sum and substance of the complaint was that thepetitioner and the first respondent were in real estate business, as suchboth of them have acquaintance with each other. Due to the saidacquaintance, the first respondent approached the petitioner for hand roanof Rs.10.00 rakhs for his urgent business necessary and on the petitioner The petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the firstpetitioner herein filed a private complaint against the firstherein filed a private complaint against the firstfiled a private complaint against the firsta private complaint against the firstprivate complaint against the firstthe firstfirst

arranged the said amount in the month of December, 2007. The firstrespondent executed a promissory note in favour of the petitioner hereinby undertaking to repay the amount as and when demanded by thepetitioner. Thereafter, on repeated demands made by the petitioner, thepetitioner. Thereafter, on repeated demands made by the petitioner, thefirst respondent issued a cheque bearing No.242435 dated 02.4.200gdrawn on HSBC bank, Hyderabad, towards repayment of the hand loanamount of Rs.10.00 lakhs which he took from the petitioner. Thedrawn on HSBC bank, Hyderabad, towards repayment of the hand loanamount of Rs.10.00 lakhs which he took from the petitioner. Thepetitioner presented the said cheque in ICICI bank, Kukatpalli branch forcollection on 30.4.2008. But the said cheque was returned unpaid with anendorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer, with the cheque returncollection on 30.4.2008. But the said cheque was returned unpaid with anendorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer, with the cheque returnmemo dated 30.4.2008. However, on the request made by the firstrespondent the petitioner again presented the cheque on 04.g.200g intothe bank, but the same was returned unpaid by the bankers due to samethe bank, but the same was returned unpaid by the bankers due to samereason with cheque return memo dated 04.8.2008. Thereafter, thepetitioner got issued a registered legal notice to the first respondentdemanding him to pay the amount covered by the cheque. Though thefirst respondent received the said notice, he did not choose to pay thefirst respondent received the said notice, he did not choose to pay theamount but he gave an evasive reply. Hence the petitioner filed thecomplaint, which was taken on file C.C.No.263 of 2009 for the offencepunishable under Sections 138 and i42 of N.I.Act.

4 During the course of enquiry, the petitioner being the complainantgot examined himself as P.W.1 and he also got examined two witnesses as P.ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.p.1 to p.B. on beharf of the firstrespondent, D.ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.g were marked.respondent, D.ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.g were marked.

5 The learned triar court, after appreciating the materiar avairabrebefore it, both oral and documentary, came to the concrusion that thepetitioner failed to establish the guilt of the first respondent for theoffence punishabre under sections 138 and 142 0f N.LAct and accordingryacquitted the first respondent of the said offence by judgment dated03.02.2011.

6 Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, thepetitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2011 on the file of the courtof the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) atSangareddy. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after re_appreciatingthe entire evidence, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 31.01.2011.Hence the present criminal revision case.

7 The learned counser for the petitioner submitted that the courtbelow ought to have allowed the appeal as the first failed to rebut thepresumption under N.l Act. He further submitted that since the petitionerdischarged his initiar burden as signature of the drawer of the cheque isadmitted by him and the cheque was received by horder for the dischargeof debt. He further submitted that the Courts below faired to see that thefirst respondent fairecj to rebut the presumption under section 11g-A of \

t

re\r

\r

I

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned counsel for thepetitioner relied on the ratio laid down in K.Bhaskaran v, SankaranVaidhyan Balai in support of his contentions.

8 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondentthe other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondentother hand, the learned counsel for the first respondenthand, the learned counsel for the first respondentthe learned counsel for the first respondentlearned counsel for the first respondentfor the first respondentfirst respondentrespondentcontended that both the courts below have concurrently held that thepetitioner failed to establish the guilt of the first respondent beyondreasonable doubt and have rightly acquitted the first respondent of thealleged offence, Therefore, the [judgments ]of both the coufts below do notwarrant any inteference of this Court.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondentthe other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondentother hand, the learned counsel for the first respondenthand, the learned counsel for the first respondentthe learned counsel for the first respondentlearned counsel for the first respondentfor the first respondentfirst respondentrespondent 9 As seen from the record, both the courts below have held that thepetitioner failed to produce the promissory note in order to establish thetransaction. The [petitioner ]also failed to produce the income tax returnsto show that he has such capacity to lend money to the first respondent.Both the courts below have categorically held that the first respondent hassucceeded in rebutting the presumption under Section 118-A of N.l. Act.The first respondent has successfully rebutted the presumption underSection 139 of the N.l. Act that the cheque was issued not in connectionwith any legally enforceable debt. The first respondent has successfullyestablished that there are several money transactions between him andthe petitioner and that the subject cheque was issued in connection withsome other transactions, which the petitioner failed to disprove. The facts of the case in K.Bhaskaran (r supra) reried on by the rearned counser(r supra) reried on by the rearned counser for the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand.

10 For all the above reasons, I am of the considered view that thepetitioner failed to prove the guilt of the first respondent beyond allreasonable doubt. Hence I do not incline to interfere with the wellconsidered judgments of both the courG below.

11 Accordingry, this criminar revision case is riabre to be and isdismissed as devoid of merit.

12 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminar revision case shall also stand dismissed.

SD/. SRI T. SRINIVASDEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) AtSangareddy. ( with Record if any)Sangareddy. ( with Record if any)

2. One CC to SriP Venkat Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri Venkateswara Rao GudapatiAdvocate [OPUC]

4. Two CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court For The State ofTelangana at Hyderabad IOUTITelangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

5. Two CD Copies

rf

(L

KA

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.554 ot 2012

THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASEIS DISMISSED AS DEVOID OF MERIT.\il iHE14I6(-\('o(.rB 2 APB 2024ioi.z-t.L *.+ ,,i/,4PAT ct\[€9]