THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.321 of 2006 18-12-2014 BETWEEN:
K.Subhash Reddy …..Appellant/Complainant AND M/s.Jyothi Constructions And others.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.321 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the complainant challenging the Judgment dated 19.12.2005 passed in C.C.No.973 of 2001 by the Court of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge acquitted A.1, A.5 And A.6 for the offence under Sections 406, 468 and 471 IPC and also acquitted A.2 to A.4 for the offence under Section 406 read with 34 IPC, Section 468 read with 34 IPC, Section 471 read with 34 IPC.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows.
That the complainant obtained loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from A.1 firm, of which A.2 to A.6 are the Managing Partners. At the time of taking of loan, the complaint issued three cheques, each Rs.1,00,000/- towards repayment of the said loan. The complainant also issued three promissory notes and kept blank ‘the name’ and ‘amount’ columns. At the request of the accused, the complaint did not fill the name and put the year as ‘19’ only in the cheques. It is alleged that afterwards, the accused added ‘97’ after ‘19’ and modified as year ‘1997’. Later, the complainant repaid the loan amount to the accused and requested the accused to return the cheques and promissory notes handed over to the accused by him. In the month of December, 2007, the complainant borrowed handloan of Rs.2,00,000/- from A.5. At the request of the A.5, the complainant has given two blank cheques and two promissory notes to A.5. Later, in the month of April, 2000, the complainant discharged the loan amount. The accused in collusion fabricated the promissory notes and cheques issued by the complainant as genuine one and thereby committed the offences under Sections 406, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The complainant filed a private complaint against the accused. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.28 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Exs.D.1 to D.4.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and on hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 406, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and accordingly acquitted the accused of the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has preferred the present criminal appeal.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
As per the cause list, A.2 to A.5 died and Xerox copies of the death certificates are also enclosed, and as such, the case against A.2 to A.5 stands abated. It is also stated that whereabouts of A.6 is not known for the last ten years and as such, the notice on A.6 is also not served, and hence, the case against A.6 is also abated. The case remains against A.1 only.
It is admitted fact by the complainant that he has given a cheque bearing No.597597, drawn on Indian Bank, Barkatpura Branch, Hyderabad, and also promissory note. According to the complainant, even after he paid the entire amount, the respondents herein used the said cheque by filling the amount, thereby subsequently filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is rightly observed by the learned trial Judge that P.W.1 deposed that he wrote on the promissory notes the year as 97, as 19 is already printed there. If it is true, the year in the date on the Ex.P.1, cheque must be as 1997, whereas the year in the date in Ex.P.1 is written as 1999 falsifying the version of the complainant. Further, it is not the case of the complainant that the accused altered the cheque or forged the cheque.
In view of the above discussion, on perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given while acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as abated against A.2 to A.6. The Criminal Appeal is also dismissed against A.1. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 18.12.2014 pln