IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2379 OF 2011

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow this Revision by calling the records and setting aside the conviction/sentence imposed/ confirmed by the IX Additional Metropolitan Session Judge Cyberabad, vide Crl.A.No.82 of 2010, dated 25.11.2011, in CC.No.649 of 2009 dated 1-7-2010, of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Ranga Reddy District.

Between:

S.Ravi Kumar,, S/o. Venkataiah, Business, R/o. 16-11/20/1/A, Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet,

...Petitioner/Appellant sole Accused

AND

• 1. The state of a.p. Rep., by its PP & P.Srinivas, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
• P.Srinivas,, S/o. Harinath, Business, R/o. 20-52, Shardanagar, Dilsukhnagar, R.R.Dist.

...Respondents/Respondents Complainant

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. K.Anantha Rao

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (TG)

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.Venu Madhav

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VDNUGOPAL CRTMINAL REVIST ON CASE No.2379 oF 2011

I

!

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused against the judgment dated 25'11'2011 in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2OlO on the lile of the learned IX Additional District Judge FTC, L'B' Nagar' R'R' District (for short' "the appellate Court") conlirming the judgment dated Ol'07'2010 inC.C.No.686of2oogonthefileofthelearnedXIIIMetropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B' Nagar, R'R' District (for short' "the trial Court").

2.HeardMr'K.AnanthaRao,learnedcounselforthepetitioner and Mr.K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for respondent No'2'

3.Thebrieffactsofthecasearethatthepetitioner/accused and respondent No.2/complainant are friends and in view of such acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant and requested for hand loan of Rs' 1,0O,OOO/- to meet his business necessities and promises to repay the same within one year \ tog"", with interest @ Rs.2o/o per month' On such request' the \g complainant advanced an amount of Rs' l,OO'0OO/- to the accused on 03.03.2005 by way of cash' Having received the

same, the accused executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,OO,O0O/ in favour of the complainant on the same day. He failed to pay the money due after the lapse of stipulated time. On persistent demands of the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.BBOO33 dated 1O.O7.2006 for Rs. 1,0O,OOO/- drawn on UCO Bank, Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad in discharge of the legally enforceable debt. On presentation, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement, "insuflicient funds". Later, the complainant issued lega1 notice to the accused on 23.10.2006 but the accused knowingly tnclaimed' the said legal notice and failed to pay the money within the stipulated time. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the NI Act'). The trial Court, vide judgment dated O1.07.2010 in C.C.No.686 of 2OO9, found the petitioner/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,0OO/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

)

4. The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the Appeal, confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court' Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision'

5. l,earned counsel for the petitioner/ accused submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, failed to consider the fact that the evidence collected in the case is not suflice to convict the accused in a routine manner solely on the technicalities alleged by respondent No.2/complainant; the complainant failed to discharge initial burden of debt cast upon him under law. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revision.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No'2/complainant contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision.

7. On behalf of the complainant, the trial Court examined PWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs.Pl to P6. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that the admission of the accused that he issued Ex Pl cheque to the complainant relieves the initial burden cast uPon

-1

the complainant. Once the initial burden of the complainant is discharged, the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act is that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for the discharge in whole or in part of a debt or liability.

B. The version of the accused is that he repaid the loal arnount by way of installments paying Rs.3,750/- per month and cleared off the entire loan. Having received the entire loan amount, PWl assured the accused to return the promissory note and cheque. But the complainant misused the cheque and promissory note by filling the same and filed the present complaint. Thus, the accused stated that he is not liable to repay any further amount.

⁹. The accused failed to lile any piece of evidence to show that he repaid the loan amount by way of installment and he demanded for return of Exs.Pl and, P2. Further, the accused does not dispute the signatures on either Ex P 1 or Ex p2. The execution of Ex P2 promissory note is proved. Therefore, the trial Court observed that there is absolutely no justification for discarding the complainant's case. Thus, the accused failed to discharge the burden of proving that the cheque was not issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Further, the accused did

I

not dispute the issuance of legal notice under Ex P4 bY the complainant. Therefore' the trial Court held' that the accused was 138 of NI Act. guiltY of the judgment passed by the trial Court ald dismissed the appeal' offence Punishable under Section the aPPeal, the aPPellate Court confirmed the Further, rn

10. This Court vide order dated 28'11'2011 suspended the sentence of imprisonment arone imposed against the petitioner, pending Revision and enlarged him on bail on condition of his executing a bond in a sum of Rs'5'00O/- with one suret)' of a like srlm to the satisfaction of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad' at L'B' Nagar' Later' the matter underwent several adj ournments'

¹1 . In the case on hand' both the Courts held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act' which finding, in my consfulered view' does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the well considered judgments passed by both the Courts'

1 12. having regard 6fie submissions made by both the learned counsel, relying on the decisions passed by the H91b1e !-yore3e

5

Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal¹, R. Vijayan Vs. Baby², S.R. Sunil & Company Vs. D. Srinivasavaradan³, Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvi⁴, Somnath Sarkar Vs. Utpal Basu Mallick⁵ and Gimpex (P) Ltd Vs. Manoj Goel, upon considering the fact that the petitioner underwent mental agony by roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view, accordingly, the period of sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Court below is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

13. The petitioner is directed to deposit compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of C.C.No.686 of 2009 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar, R.R.District within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer the judgment dated 25.11.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2010 passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge FTC, L.B.Nagar, R.R. District.

¹ 2010 (5) SCC 663 ² (2012) 1 SCC 260 ³ (2014) 16 SCC 32 ⁴ (2015) 9 SCC 622 ⁵ 2013 (16) SCC 465 6

14. Except the above modification, in a-11 other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR DE REGISTRAR

c ION OFFICER

//TRUE COPYI

To,

• '1 . The lX Additional Metropolitan Session Judge Cyberabad'
• 2. The Xlll lvletropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Ranga Reddy District
• 3. One CC to SRI K.Anantha Rao ,Advocate IOPUC]
• 4. One CC to SRl. K .Venumadhav, Advocate IOPUCI
• ⁵ ffi, Cq,o SRl. P.P (TG), High Court for the state of Telangana, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

6. Two CD Copies

w

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/12/2024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2379 of 2011

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED.

9 copees