IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1299 OF 2010 Between: K. Surender Reddy … PETITIONER And 1. B. Narsimha Reddy 2. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1299 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the complainant questioning reversing judgment dated 12.01.2010, passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, acquitting the first respondent/appellant of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, by judgment dated 19.12.2006, in S.T.C.No.108 of 2005, convicted the first respondent/accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to Simple Imprisonment for three months and pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. It was reversed in Crl.A.No.7 of 2007 by the lower Appellate Court. 2. Ex.P1 is the dishonoured cheque said to have been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.4,50,000/-. It was dishonoured by the bank as per Ex.P2 dishonoured Memo. Subsequently, the complainant got issued Ex.P3-Statutory Notice to the accused who received the same under Ex.P4- Acknowledgement and gave Ex.P5-Reply Notice and did not pay the demanded amount. According to the accused, the complainant filed the case due to family disputes. 3. No doubt, during trial before the Magistrate, the accused did not examine himself as witness to speak to the allegations contained in Ex.P5-Reply Notice. There is presumption under Section 139 of the Act to the effect that the dishonoured cheque was issued towards legally enforceable liability of the accused. It is a rebuttable presumption. Examination of the accused is not the only method of rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The lower Appellate Court pointed out basic inconsistency in the statements of the complainant as P.W.1. It is the complainant’s case in the complaint as well as in Ex.P3-Notice and also in his evidence as P.W.1 that the accused issued the cheque in favour of P.W.1 to repay sale consideration received by the accused under Ex.P6-Sale Deed. In Cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted contents of his sworn statement. The sworn statement reads that the accused was having real estate business and assured to secure a plot at Gaddiannaram and believing that version, the complainant’s wife paid amount to the accused who could not provide plot at Gaddiannaram and that when demanded for return of the money, the accused dragged the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately issued Ex.P1-Cheque for Rs.4,50,000/-. The lower Court found that both the above versions of the complainant are opposed to each other and cannot stand and could not be explained by the complainant. Thus, on appreciation of evidence on record, the lower Court disbelieved the complainant’s case and held that presumption under Section 139 of the Act stood rebutted. 4. In this revision petition, the petitioner cannot request the Court to reappraise evidence on record. Appraisal of evidence by the lower appellate Court is not in any way perverse. Further, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction in a revision petition in view of Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C. There are no grounds to interfere with order of acquittal passed by the lower Appellate Court. 5. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 17, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1299 OF 2010 August 17, 2010 KL