THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.556 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 29.03.2012 passed by learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar (for short ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2010, wherein and whereby the learned appellate Court modified the judgment dated 17.02.2010 in C.C.No.1305 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/complainant and respondent No.1/accused are well acquainted with each other. On such acquaintance, the appellant/complainant gave an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the accused executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest 2% per month. But the accused has not paid the said amount. On demand of the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.106578, dated 19.09.2007 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant, the said cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement “Account Closed”. Then the complainant informed the same to accused and asked to pay the amount, but, the accused gave evasive replies. Then, on 25.09.2007, the complainant issued a legal notice requesting to pay the said amount. Accused has received the said notice on 29.09.2007, but failed to pay the same. Therefore, the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “NI Act”).

3. During course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. On behalf of the defence, RW1 examined and no document was marked on his behalf.

4. The trial Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2010 in C.C.No.1305 of 2007 found the petitioner/accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as fine, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1/accused preferred the Appeal.

5. Upon hearing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the appellate Court vide impugned judgment, partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of one (01)

year passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the complainant preferred the present Appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State - respondent No.2.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned appellate Court, without considering the evidence available on record in proper perspective, erroneously set-aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the learned appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, rightly passed the impugned judgment and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

Therefore, he seeks dismiss this criminal appeal.

9. It is well settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, the learned appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible