THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.282 of 2017 and 283 of 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT :

These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., by the appellants/complainants aggrieved by the common judgment dated 31.01.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.845 of 2016 (filed by the 1st respondent/accused) with Criminal Revision Petition No.227 of 2016 (filed by the appellant/complainant in CC No.683 of 2013) and Criminal Appeal No.846 of 2016 (filed by the 1^st respondent/accused) with Criminal Revision Petition No.226 of 2016 (filed by the appellant/complainant in CC No.684 of 2013) all on the file of the learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and where under the findings of conviction and sentence imposed against the 1^st respondent/accused vide judgments dated 07.09.2016 passed in CC Nos.684 of 2013 and 683 of 2013 by the learned XXV Special Magistrate at Hyderabad were set aside and the prayer of the appellants/complainants to grant compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. In both the appeals, this Court heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Sri SA Kalam Riyaz, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the 2^nd respondent/State.

3. Since the parties to both these criminal appeals are one and the same, these criminal appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The facts that lead to the present litigation concisely are that the complainants in both the cases are wife and husband and employees working in this High Court. The accused is an ex-employee of this High Court. Further, being colleagues the complainants in both the cases and the accused are having acquaintance with each other and out of such acquaintance the accused approached the complainants and obtained a hand loan of Rs.6,50,000/- on 05.08.2013 and in partial discharge of the same, the accused issued cheque bearing Nos.070800 dated 03.09.2013 for Rs.50,000/- and 035484 dated 06.09.2013 for Rs.3,00,000/- both drawn on the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad, High Court premises branch, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad. Further, upon presentation, both the cheques were returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds vide return memos dated 06.09.2013. Accordingly, the complainants got issued legal notice dated 16.09.2013 intimating dishonour of the said cheques and demanding the accused to pay the amount covered therein. In-spite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed either to repay the amount or to give any reply. Hence, the complainants initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

5. To substantiate their case, the respective complainants got themselves examined as PW1 and exhibited documents under Ex.P1 to P10 in both the cases. In CC No.683 of 2013 Ex.C1 and in CC No.684 of 2013 Exs.C1 and C2, being the service report of Charminar Police Station and summons served to the accused were also marked as Court documents.

6. The accused denied the allegations levelled against her mainly contending that since the accused was promoted to the post of Deputy Section Officer by overlooking the seniority of complainant in CC No.683 of 2013, who is the wife of complainant in CC No.684 of 2013, the complainants bore grudge and implicated her in the present case and that she was in Bhimavaram between the period 01.08.2013 and 18.09.2013 and stayed with her sister since the accused became ill during that time and hence, issuance of subject cheques on 05.08.2013 at Hyderabad by her to the complainants does not arise and that at that time her son was pursuing MS in USA with the aid of US Government and hence, there was no necessity for her to avail hand loan from the complainant. She also contended that the complainants have no financial capacity to lend such huge amount. To substantiate her case, the accused apart from examining herself as DW1, also exa