Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1342
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.
A.Narasimha Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
S.Srinivas Rao And Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2015
Decided On : 07-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Challa Sivasankar
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor TG
In criminal appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must refrain from overturning unless there's a clear legal error or lack of evidence supporting the acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court must not interfere unless the trial court's decision is perverse or illegal - Acquittal is strengthened by the presumption of innocence and remains until proven guilty - Reappraisal and review of evidence permissible within limits set forth by law. (Paras 10, 11, and 12)
(B) Appeal - Acquittal of accused - Burden on appellate court to show compelling reasons for disturbing an acquittal - Acknowledged that if two reasonable views are possible, the one in favor of the accused should be adopted. (Paras 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
The accused and complainant had a longstanding business relationship, wherein the complainant extended hand loans to the accused. Following a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for business needs in February 2012, the accused issued cheques which were later dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the trial court had failed to properly assess evidence leading to erroneous conviction. No promissory note for the disputed loan indicated that the case by the complainant was false; hence, acquittal was upheld.
Issues: The key issues were the adequacy of evidence supporting the conviction and the standards for overturning an acquittal in criminal cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that unless there are compelling reasons indicating the trial court's approach was unreasonable or perverse, the appellate court should refrain from interfering with acquittals. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to ensure credibility.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant seeking to set aside the reversing judgment of acquittal dated 09.07.2025 in Crl.A.No.712 of 2014 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, “the appellate Court”) and confirm judgment dated 22.08.2014 in C.C.No.71 of 2014 passed by the learned III Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram at L.B.Nagar, R.R. District (for short, “the trial Court”).
2. Heard Sri Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2-State. Perused the material available on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that accused and complainant are friends. The accused does Real Estate business in Ranga Reddy District as well as in twin cities i.e. Hyderabad and Secunderabad. There is a long relation in Real Estate business between the complainant and the accused from the year 2005. The complainant provides hand loans to the accused for business and accused used to pay monthly interest. The accused paid principal amounts to the complainant through the Cheques drawn from Oriental Bank dated 18.07.2011 for Rs.3,00,000/- and another cheque drawn from HDFC Bank dated 25.01.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- in connection with earlier hand loans.
3.1 It is further stated that after repayment of above loan total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- the accused requested complainant in the month of February 2012 to advance loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for urgent business needs promising to repay within six months with interest @ 36%. The complainant paid said amount to the accused in the presence of one D.Sree Ramulu Reddy, who is Co-Partner/friend of accused.
3.2. It is alleged that the complainant demanded for repayment of loan after expiry of six months. The accused did not repay loan amount in spite of several demands. The complainant waited for repayment up to July 2013. The accused promised to sell his property in the month of August 2013 and to repay the loan. At last, the accused voluntarily issued two cheques in favour of complainant vide cheque bearing No.643024 dated 19.08.2013 for Rs.10,000/- and cheque bearing No.643025 dated 19.08.2013 for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad towards principal amount and accused promised to pay the interest in the month of September 2013.
3.3. It is stated that on instruction of the accused, the complainant presented said Cheques in his Bank i.e. State Bank of India, Gaddiannaram Branch Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad on 24.08.2013, but the cheques were dishonored on the ground that there is insufficient funds in the account of the accused and the complainant received such memos on 27.08.2013. Thereafter, the complainant met the accused through his friend D.Sree Ramulu Reddy for returning amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest and also intimated about the dishonor of cheques.
3.4. It is stated that seeing the attitude of accused, the complainant got issued Legal Notice to accused through his Advocate on 04.09.2013 calling upon the accused to repay the amount within fifteen days. The notice is served on the accused on 12.09.2013 as per acknowledgment signed by the accused. The accused got issued reply notice dated 01.10.2013 through his advocate. It is stated that the accused admitted the liability and transaction between him and the complainant and also about issuance of cheques. But to avoid payments, the accused created a story that he has paid amount in respect of cheques and the complainant did not return the cheques. The accused also admitted that he has taken another loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.07.2011 from the complainant without interest and he has issued two promissory notes in favour of the complainant. It is stated that the above loan cannot be linked with the cheques number now dishonoured. Therefore, the accused alleged to have committed the of
