CRLRC/552/2012 of M.NAGESWARA RAO, Vs SRI KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS AND THE STATE OF A.P on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the pretitioner; P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the pretitioner; for the pretitioner; the pretitioner; pretitioner; SriVenkateswar Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the first res;pondent andsri Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant [public ]prosecutor appearing for theState - 2nd respondent.

Heard Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the pretitioner; P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the pretitioner; for the pretitioner; the pretitioner; pretitioner; Sri 2 This criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 201 Cr.p.C, isfiled aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.01.2012 passed in crr.A.No.23 of2011 on the file of the court of the learned II Additiorral District &Sessions Judge, (FTC) at Sangareddy, wherein and whereby the appealpreferred by the petitioner herein was dismissed confirming the judgmentdated 03.02.2011 passed by the learned Judicial First class Magistrate,Sangareddy in C.C.No.262 of 2009 was confirmed.

3 The petitioner herein fired a private petitioner herein fired a private a private private compraint against the firstthe firstfirstrespondent herein before the Court of the Additional Judic al First classMagistrate, sangareddy for the offence punishable under sections l3g 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.5'00 rakhs for his urgent business necessary and on lhe petitioner

The petitioner herein fired a private petitioner herein fired a private a private private compraint against the firstthe firstfirst arranged the said [amount ][on ][24.12,2007. ][The ][first ][respondent executed ][a]promissory note in favour of the [petitioner ][herein ][on the ][even date ][by]to [repay ][the ][amount ][as ][and ][when ][demanded ][by ][the]undertaking petitioner. Thereafter, on repeated [demands made ][by ][the ][petitioner, ][the]first respondent [issued ][a ][cheque bearing ][No.456053 ][dated ][20.4.2008]drawn on [HSBC ][bank, ][Hyderabad, ][towards ][repayment ][of ][the ][hand ][loan]amount of [Rs.5.00 ][lakhs ][which ][he ][took ][from the ][petitioner. ][The ][petitioner]presented the said cheque [in ][ICICI ][bank, ][Kukatpalli branch ][for ][collection]on 30.4,2008. [But ][the ][said ][cheque ][was ][returned unpaid ][with ][an]endorsement [,Exceeded arrangements' ][with ][the ][cheque ][return ][memo]dated 30.4.2008. [However, ][on ][the ][request made by ][the first ][respondent]the [petjtioner ]again [presented ][the ][cheque on 04.8.2008 ][into ][the ][bank, but]the same [was returned ][unpaid ][by the ][bankers ][due ][to ][insufficient ][funds]with cheque return [memo dated ][04.8.2008. ][Thereafter, the petitioner ][got]issued a registered [legal ][notice ][to ][the ][first ][respondent ][demanding him ][to]paytheamountcoveredbythecheque.Thoughthefirstrespondentreceived the said [notice, ][he ][did not ][choose ][either ][to ][pay ][the amount ][or ][to]give reply. Hence the [petitioner ][filed ][the ][complaint, which was taken ][on]file as C.C.No.1001 [0f ][2008 ][0n ][the ][file ][of ][the ][court ][of ][the ][Additional]Judicial First class [Magistrate, ][sangareddy ][for ][the ][offence ][punishable]under sections 138 and [142 ][of ][N.I.Act. ][Thereafter, ][the ][case ][was]transferred to the [Court ][of ][the ][Judicial First ][Class Magistrate, ][Special]

Mobile Court, Sangareddy, (hereinafter referred to as'the trial Court) andnumbered as C.C.No.262 of 2009.

4 During the course of enquiry, the petitioner being the complainantgot examined himself as P.W.1 and he also got examined two witnesses asP.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of the firstrespondent, D.Ws.1to 3 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.8 were marked.

5 The learned trial Court, after appreciating the material availablebefore it, both oral and documentary, came to the conclus;ion that thepetitioner failed to establish the guilt of the flrst responrlent for theoffence [punishable ]under Sections 138 and 142 of N.l.Act anrl accordinglyacquitted the first respondent of the said offence by judr;ment dated03.02.2011

6 Aggrieved by the [judgment ]passed by the learned trial Court, thepetitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2011 on the file: of the Courtof the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) atSangareddy. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after rer-appreciatingthe entire evidence, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 31.01.2011.Hence the present criminal revision case.

7 The learned learned counser for the petitioner submitted for the petitioner submitted the petitioner submitted petitioner submitted that the courtcourtbelow ought to have ailowed the appear as the first faired to rebut theresumption under N.I Act. He further submitted that since the petitioner

The learned learned counser for the petitioner submitted for the petitioner submitted the petitioner submitted petitioner submitted that the courtcourt discharged his initial burden as signature of the drawer of the cheque isadmitted by him and the cheque was received by holder for the dischargeof debt. He further submitted that the Courts below failed to see that thefirst respondent failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118-4 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned counsel for thepetitioner relied on the ratio laid down in K.Bhaskaran v. SankaranVaidhyan Balai in suppoft of his contentions.

8 On the other hand, the other hand, hand, the learned counsel learned counsel for the first 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 courts below do notwarrant any interference of this Court On the other hand, the other hand, hand, the learned counsel learned counsel for the first respondentrespondent 9 As seen from the record, both the courts below have held that theseen from the record, both the courts below have held that thefrom the record, both the courts below have held that thethe record, both the courts below have held that therecord, both the courts below have held that thethe courts below have held that thecourts below have held that thethat thethepetitioner 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 evidence of P.W.2 who was examined on behalf of the petitionercannot be believed since P.W.2 was also complainant in another complaint As seen from the record, both the courts below have held that theseen from the record, both the courts below have held that thefrom the record, both the courts below have held that thethe record, both the courts below have held that therecord, both the courts below have held that thethe courts below have held that thecourts below have held that thethat thethe ' [(1999) ][7 ][scc ][510]

lodged against the first respondent. [The ][first ][respondent has ][successfully]rebutted the [presumption under Section ][139 ][of ][the ][N'1. ][Act ][that ][the]cheque was issued not in [connection ][with any ][legally enforceable ][debt.]The first respondent [has ][successfully ][established ][that ][there are ][several]money transactions between [him ][and ][the ][petitioner ][and ][that the ][subject]cheque was issued [in ][connection ][with ][some ][other transaction;, ][whlch ][the]petitioner failed to disprove. The facts of the case in K,Bhaskaran [(7]supra) relied on by the [learned counsel ][for the ][petitioner ][are ][not]applicable to the [case ][on ][hand.]

10 For all the above [reasons, ]I [am ][of ][the ][considered ][v ][ew ][that ][the]

petitioner failed to prove the guilt of the first responden'. beyond [all]reasonable doubt. Hence I do not [incline ]to [interfere ][ra,ith ][the ][well]considered [judgments ]of both [the courts ][below.]

11 Accordingly, this [criminal revision ][case ][is ][liable ][to ][be ][and ][is]dismissed as devoid of [merit.]

12 Miscellaneous [petitions ]if any [pending ][in this criminal ][revision ][case]

shall also stand dismissed.

SD/- K SHYLESHIDEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ISECTION OFFICER [i]

To

1 . The Judicial First Class [Magistrate, Special Mobile Court' Sangareddy']

2. The ll Additional District [& Sessions ][Judge (F ][T.C) ][at San'3areddy-]3. Two CCs to the [Public ][Prosecutor, High Court ][for ][the ][S ate ][of ][Telangana at]Hyderabad [(OUT)]3. Two CCs to the [Public ][Prosecutor, High Court ][for ][the ][S ate ][of ][Telangana at]Hyderabad [(OUT)]4. One CC to SRI [P ][VENKAT REDDY, Advocate ][[OPUC]]

5. One CC to SRl. [VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI, Advocate ][[OPUC]]

6. Two CD Copies

,

HIGH COURT

EW, J

DATED: 29t12t2023

ORDERCRLRC.No.SS2 of 2012

DISMISSING THE CRL.RCAS DEVOID OF MERIT

.10 q,'

1 t ti;,i [li24]

E

;*-J,r,;i.-.'ffi+-fiti';ffi;r. :i: ;t"lt i:.:

{!;iir:?']:]e