IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1062 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Saleem Traders … PETITIONER And 1. D. Shivaji 2. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1062 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This appeal is sought to be filed by the complainant against acquittal of the accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) by judgment dated 27.05.2010, passed by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.262 of 2008. The case was filed on the basis of Exs.P1 & P2-dishonoured cheques for Rs.53,000/- and Rs.99,000/- respectively as per Exs.P3 & P4- dishonoured memos. Plea of the accused was one of not guilty. 2. It is alleged that the accused issued the cheques towards discharge of promissory note debt. The complainant did not file the promissory note much less examined any persons relating to the promissory note. Further, the complainant as P.W.1 admitted in cross-examination that the name of payee and date on the cheques are in different hand writing from the amounts mentioned in figures and words. The complainant has failed to explain the said suspicious features on the cheques. No doubt, there is presumption as to legally enforceable liability under Section 139 of the Act. At the same time, it is a rebuttable presumption. Denial of legally enforceable debt by the accused by way of examining himself as witness, is not the only method of rebutting the presumption. The presumption can be rebutted even from other evidence on record let in by the complainant also and the circumstances surrounding the complainant’s evidence and documents. Having regard to the lacunae pointed out above, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that the complainant could not prove his case. In the absence of proof of legally enforceable debt and suspicious features in the cheques, the lower Court rightly acquitted the accused. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the lower Court without hearing arguments of counsel for the complainant or the defence counsel, pronounced the judgment of acquittal. No doubt, Section 314 Cr.P.C. enables the parties to address arguments after conclusion of trial. But if the counsel did not address arguments inspite of the matter being posted for arguments, then the lower Court is not bound to wait sine die for arguments of the counsel. When both the counsel did not address arguments, the lower Court rightly proceeded to the next step of pronouncing the judgment. There are no infirmities in the judgment passed by the lower Court. 4. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 25, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1062 OF 2010 August 25, 2010 KL