THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.290 OF 2018

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred assailing the judgment dated

28.10.2016 passed in C.C.No.1096 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Magistrate, Miryalaguda (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. G.Sundaresan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 State.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in C.C.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused approached the complainant with a request to give hand loan amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to him. On 10.02.2014, the complainant gave the said amount to the accused and executed a promissory note and the accused assured that he would repay the same to the complainant within one month. On repeated requests made by the complainant, on 05.05.2014 the accused issued a cheque. When the complainant presented the said cheque before the bank on 24.07.2014, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. On 26.07.2014, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused demanding to pay the cheque amount and the accused received the said notice on 30.07.2014 and failed to send any reply to the said legal notice. On 08.09.2014, a private complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short ‘the NI Act’). On 18.09.2014 sworn statement of the complainant was recorded.

4. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, charge was framed against accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, read over and explained to him. Upon examination, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of the defence, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and no exhibits were marked. The trial Court, on appraisal of entire evidence both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of respondent No.2/accused for the offences with which he was charged and accordingly, acquitted him.

6. It is well settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, the 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 on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

7. In Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479 the Apex Court held as under:

“It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is

heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed