THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.636 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the judgement dated 27.03.2014 in Crl.A No.585 of 2013, passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Red hills, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), wherein and whereby the accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act”) by setting aside the finding of conviction of accused imposed as per judgment dated 15.05.2013 in CC No.131 of 2012 passed by the IX Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the due to personal acquaintance of the complainant, accused approached her and took hand loan of Rs.75,000/- on 04.12.2009 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.12.2009. The total amount borrowed from the complainant is Rs.1,75,000/- and agreed to repay the same within three months with interest. But the accused did not repay the same. On repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued cheque bearing Nos.93135, dated 15.10.2011 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, Cheque No.931355, dated 21.10.2011 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-, Cheque No.699212, dated 22.10.2011 for an amount of Rs.35,000/-, Cheque No.699213, dated 22.10.2011 for an amount of Rs.35,000/- and Cheque No.931358, dated 22.10.2011 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. When the cheques were presented, cheque No.93135 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, Cheque No.931355 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-, Cheque No.699212 for an amount of Rs.35,000/- were dishonoured with an endorsement funds insufficient. The accused presented the three cheques vide cheque No.699212 for Rs.35,000/-, cheque No.699123 for Rs.35,000/- and cheque No.931358 for an amount of Rs.25,000/-, but the same were also returned with an endorsement funds insufficient. Then the complainant got issued statutory notice on 29.12.2011. The accused gave reply on 10.01.2012 denying the claim made by the complainant. Therefore, the accused committed offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. During course of trial, the complainant PW.1 herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. None were examined on behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 and D1(a) were marked on behalf of the accused.

4. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted for the said offence under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo S.I for a period of one month. In addition to that the accused has to pay Rs.95,000/- due under Ex.P1, P3 and P5 (Cheques to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C). Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.585 of 2013 before the learned appellate Court.

5. Upon hearing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the appellate Court has allowed the appeal reversing the judgment dated 15.03.2013 passed by the learned trail Court in C.C.No.131 of 2012. Challenging the same, the accused filed the present criminal appeal before this Court.

6. Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Jayanthi Jayasri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned appellate Court, without considering the evidence available on record in proper perspective, erroneously acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, she seeks to set aside the judgment impugned.

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

Therefore,