The High Court · 2025

utor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT NO. 2 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. H SUDHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRl. E. GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER ,/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VE NUGOPAL CRIMINAL RIVISION CASE No.19 8 0F 2011 ORDER: "#.. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated O1.11.2010 in Crl.A.No.S9 of 2OlO,passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, ,the appellate Court,,, confirming the judgment dated 04.02.2010 in C.C.No.509 o:: 11008 passed by the learned XVI Additional Judge - Cum _ XX A.C.M.M., Hyderabad (for short, ,the tria_l Court), c,onvicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused for the oflence punishable under Section 138 of N.L Act.

2. Heard Sri Mr. H. Sudhakar Rao, learnecl <:ounsel for the revision petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assista,t public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l - Strte. perused the record. \ 2 .r\.

3. The brief facts of the c are that the respondent No.1/M.s Swama Bharathi Multi rpose Mutually Aided Co- operative Society Limited is engagfd in the activity of providing hnancia-l assistance and credit facility to its members. The petitioner availed loan of Rs.5,00,f00 l-, repayable in monthly insta-llments, but failed to clear the said loan amount, leaving ' balance of Rs.7,66,850/- and on lontinuous respondent No.1, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing c persistence of the No.189207, dated 28.0 1.2OO4 tflr Rs.7,68,850/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, E.C. Ramatrishna Mutt, Domalguda Branch, Hyderabad. When respondent No 1 presented the said cheque for collection through his banker, the said cheque was returned unpaid with an endorse ent'funds insufhcient' vide Memo dated 31.01.2004. Therea-fter, respondent No.l got issued legal notice dated 04 2.2OO4 calling upon the P petitioner to clear the dues under the cheque within frfteen days. The petitioner failed to cle the dues despite receiving the notice, within the statutqry period provided under \-\ 3 Negotiable Instrument Act. The sworn rstatement of one M. Praveen Kumar, who is one of the Direcl.ols of the Society, was recorded and cognizance was taken a€;arnst the accused in the year 2OO4. Thereafter, the case vvas numbered as C.C.No.833 of 2OO4 on the file of learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Therr:a[ter, the matter was transferred to learned XX Additiona-t Chief Metropolital Magistrate, Hyderabad and re-numbered as C.C.No.SO9 of

2008. Hence, the complaint.

4. On beha-lf of the complainant, PW-1 !(/a,s exarnined and got marked Exs.Pl to Ex.P9. In defence, non€r were examined and no documents were marked. After hearir:Lg learned counsel for the respective parties and on consideratir>n of the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide judgment dated

04.O2.2OLO found the petitioner/accused guilb7 for the offence punishabte under Section 138 of the@otable Instruments Act and, accordingly, convicted and senten<:erl to pay hne of 14 ...1 Rs.S,OOO/-, in default to suffe months. Aggrieved thereby, th Crl.A.No.S9 of 2OlO on the I simple imprisonment for two fe petitioner/accused preferred file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, H [zderabad.

5. After hearing learned cou and on re-appreciation of evid for the respective parties [sel ence available on record, the appellate Court vide judgment dated 01. 1 7.2OlO, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming t passed by the trial Court. judement dated 04.o2.2o 10 Assailing the sarne, the petitioner/accused has filed the present Revision.

6. Learned counsel for the submitted that the trial Court as well as appreciate the evidence avail fletitioner/accused the appellate Court failed to able on record in proper perspective and that the coml [lainant failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable [.0,. He further contended that the evidence on record did not substantiate the charge under Section 138 of N.I.Act a ind the ingredients are not \ 5 proved by the prosecution. Therefore, he seel<s to set aside the impugned judgment.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending tha.t both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon appreciation of ora-l and documentar5r evidence available on record irL right perspective have passed their respective judgments, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence ltunishable under Section 138 of N.l.Act as stated above ald hertce, ilterference of this Court with the well considered judgm,:nts of the Courts below is unwarralted. Therefore he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

8. After careful scrutiny of the evidence a"'ailable on record, both the Courts below concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of trr*e offence with which he was chan54ed and that he has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act. Hence, I see no illegality much lesis any material 5 i irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below and, hence the fr""".r, crimina_l revision case is liable to be dismissed.

9. It is to be seen that in tJ-e instalt case, the pedtioner was imposed rigorous imprisonmerit for a period of one year and a.lso to pay a fine of Rs.5,0OO/ 10. From a perusa1 of the l""o.O, it is evident that the complainant lent a sum of Rs.5,0O,O0O/_ to t}te petitioner/accused ar d that t].e accused issued Ex.p4 cheque in favour of the complainalt t wards discharge of the said amount and when the comp t presented Ex.p4 cheque in his Bank account for collection, tf e sarne was retumed unpaid with an endorsement ,funds insuffrcient, and inspite of 2.2OO4, the petitioner failed stipulated period and arJ receipt of statutory notice on 04.0 to discharge the amounts witl1n therefore, dishonour of cheque cle3rll falls within the ambi Section l3g of Negotiable Instrumlnt Act, 1ggl. In view of 7 reason to above, this Court does not find anY PlausriLrle interfere with the well considered judgments trassed bY the trial Court as well as the appellate Court' 11. rn Damodar s.prabhu os saged Babarar Ht, t',e Hontrle Supreme Court, while observing that it is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of dishonour of cheques' it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect' held as follou's: InstrumentsLaws(Amendment)Act,1988(66of1gE8)'T,heobjectof

3. HouLeuer, there are some larger issues uLhich can be appropiatela addressed in the d)ntert of the present case' It mall be recatled thot Clapter XW comprisingsections 138 to 142 uos ll'serle d into the Act bg the Bdnking' puAU" pinonaol Institutions and Negotiable brin@ng Section 138 into tlle statut't u)as to in.r,j,tcote fatth in the efficacg of banking operations ond credibilitg in transa'ting business on negotiable instruments' It u;as to enhonce tle acceptdbititA of cheqrtes in settLement of liabilities try making the drc'Per tiable for penalties in cose of bouncing of ctwques (lue to insufrtcient arrangements made by the dranter' uith odequate safeguards to ;s dislanoured preuent harassment of lonest drouters' lf the cheque for insuJficiencg of funds in the drauter's account or iJ it exceeds the amount afianged to be paid from tlTdt a@ount' the drawer ]s t9 be'- '(zorqG scc oo: B Dunished with impisonment for a term uhich ^.:o-:*""o 'to ertend to luice tne amount of the 'rears, o.*'r;.i":;"io*n'n.^i|^o,'n!:""r'U:::",::;:,t:;::""-;' or u'tith fine -n"n ^oA * inserted in th-e statute imDrisonnent up to one gear' uhich uas reuised to trtto g'ears follouing ,l) o^.nd^tnt to the Act in 2OO2' It if Auite euid'ent tlat the leqislatiue intetlt wa-s n prouide a strong climinal remedg in order to While the aiter *e uorryingtg nign inaaentt of disholour * remedg of a '::** possibilttg of imprisonment up to ttl)o g"oL p'oudes 'a moA ertenl to ounitiue nature' the pronston'for imposing " O* purpose' Wat ^-:: uice tlte amount of th'e cheque' serues ' "olnp"ns;o'ory must be remembered' * tnat tto dbhonour of o clrcqte can be best descibed os (1 resutatory ofknce that.-las t:::^:::* public interest in ensunng the reliabilitg of these impact of this olfence ts'Juotfg tonf'ntd to the piuate parties inuolued inomme raal transactions ' L2. Further' the Hon'lcle Supreme fourt in M/s' GimPex (P) Ltd. Vd' Manoj Goeal2 held as follows: to ser-ue the The 'instruments' under both sets of conplaints woutd be contrary Orro** O'o"t*tion tle compensatory to tlte purpose of tle enactment' As tloted rLO*:' aspect of the remedA lntt tf'ouU be giu)n pioritg as opposed to the ii*,,u.- *0"", * -i*:* :^::"f;*: :::::' ":::T:. uith the re@uery of moneg' '-": ,*.:*-::'- ^'.ti",k to ensure pogment of In ract' the ::;:,:#' ::;"::;X"." *- y::Y* '"*;:; moneg' This Court in * "'i-s , ' -' , (2022) 11 scc 705 r izorz) t scc zoo 9 of tLrc olfender ts of a seandary con(Ern for the atmolainant in the fotlouLing terms: " 17. TfLe apporent intention is to en-sure that not onh1 tie offender is punislted, but also ensure that t|e complainant inuanablg receiues the amount of the cleque bg uay of compensatiort (lnder Section 357(1)(b) of the Code. Thnugh a cnntplaint Und.er Section 138 of the Act is in regard to criminal liabilitg for tlLe offence of clis\onouing the cheque and not for *e recouery of tlte cLreque amourtt (u.thich strictly speaking, has to be enJorced bg a ciuil suit), in practice once the ciminal complaint is lodged Under Sedion 138 of the Act, a ciuil suit is seldom filed to recouer tle amount of the cheque. Tl,.is is because of the prouision enabling the court to leug a fine linke-d to the cheque amount and the usaal direction in such cases is -for pagment as compensation, the cfAque amount, as loss inarred bg the complainont on acd)unt of dAhornur of cheque. Ltnder Section 357(1 )(b) of the Code and the prouision for compouna'in7 the offences Under Section 138 of the Act most of the coses (exc'"-p, lhose uhere liability is denied) get compounded ot one stage or the otller bA pagment of the cheque amount uith or uithout inter'.,st. Euen uhere the offence is not ampounded, the aurts tend to dtrect pagment of compensation eqlol to ttrc cteqte amount (or euen so,nething more touords interest) bg leuging a fine ammensurate u[lh the cheque omount. A stage hrrs reaclted u.then most of the conplainants, in portictlar tte financing institutions (partiatlarlg pr,t.uate financiers) uieuL the proceedings under Section 138 of th.e Act, as a proceeding for th-e reauery of tLe cheque amount, the punishment of the drotuer of the cheque for the offene of dishonouv beaming :;er'ondary." 10 1 \

13. In the instant case, as of no the petitioner is aged about 48 years and the complaint pertains to the year 2OO4. Therefore, in the light of the ju ial precedents laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in ,1, e above cases, I am of the considered view that instead of sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment, if the petitioner is directed to pay compensation to the second respondent, it woul meet tJ:e ends ofjustice. t L4. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.7,68,850/- (Ru s Seven Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Fifty), which shall be paid to the credit of C.C.No.5O9 of 2008 on the hle of trial Court within a period of four months from the date of re eipt of a copy of this order besides deposit of fine amount and on such deposit, the de-facto complainant is permi d to withdraw the entire amount to the satisfaction of e learned trial Court. In 'J" I default of payment of the said directed by this Court, the petitioner/accused fmount, shall suffer conviction and 11 sentence imposed vide judgment passed by ttre triar court and as conhrmed by the appellate Court.

15. With the above said modihcation, this Cnmina_l Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand dismissed. { SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI DE.PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECJ N OFFICER To, 1 . The I Additional Metrooolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderab; d. 2 The XVI Additionat Juciqe cum XX Additionll b nl.U t-ty,te aOaO 3. The Superintendent, Ctienchalguda Jail, Hyderabad. o 5 One CC to SRt. H SUDHAKARA RAO Advocare [OpUCl 6 Two CD Copies to Pubtic prosecutor, Hidh b;';;;il;tLi8'or rurrn,rana at Hyderabad ,rJJr;.' PM/gh ,/ t $ I HIGH COURT DATED:12102t2025 I ,,/ /+ '/,.:) ii-, lr,.)\ ._ t*-i !13 AUE 205 vi(. ri' :'' i' ORDER CRLRC.No.198 of 2011 ?/l I u DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ,;l