The High Court · 2025

THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.15 29 0F 2oL4 ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case is frled aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.10.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.315 of 2Ol2 on the frle of the learned IV Additiona-t Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in cdhf,rrming the judgment dated 26.O3.2012 in C.C.No.61 of 20t1 (old C.C.No.523 of 2OtO) on the file of the learned IV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the tria,l Court").

2. Heard Mr.Pujari Mani Sahith, learned Amicus Curiae representing petitioner, Ms. Sonanjali, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2_State. Perused the recored.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/comptainant had acquaintance with accused (A2) and he was in Business of Filrh Industry and he wanted to ? t- .\. \l\ F- \t 2 EW,J CrLR.c.No.152g o! 2074 establish Raghavendra Digitaf Studio and for that purpose approached the complainant arrd requested for loan and the complainant had lent Rs'13 lakhs in the month of June, 2009 and the accused promised to repay the said amount along with Rs'2 lakhs towards goodwill within a period of six months' To discharge the legal liability the accusedissuedapostdatedchequebearingNo.505464for an amount of Rs.15 lakhs drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Srinagar Colony Branch' Hyderabd' returned Funds"

4. On presentation, the said cheque was unpaid with arl endorsement "Insufficient Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused requesting him to pay the amount due' The accuped issued reply to the said legal notice but' failed to pay the amount' Hence' the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short' "NI Act")'

5. The trial Court vide judgment clted' supra' found the accused guilty for the alleged offence and convicted and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs'15'05'OO0/-' in default of I 3 EW,J CrLR.c.No.7529 oJ 2074 payment of f,ine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.

6. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as ..tthe appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidenoe available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one voice submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon appreciating the evidence available on record in right perspective, passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, learned counsels seek to dismiss the Revision. I I 4 EW,.l CrLR.c-No.7529 oJ 2014 I

9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined the complainant himself as PWl and ma-rked Exs.Pl to P8. On behalf of the defence, DWl was exarnined and no document was ma-rked. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence on record the signatures on Ex.Pl and P8 are not denied by the accused nor challenged. The trial Court opined that when once the accused admitted his signatures on Ex.Pl and P8 including its contents it can be presumed under Section 139 of NI Act the accused received the amor.rnt as evidenced iy ewr and issued Ex.Pl cheque dated 11.12.2OOg in'discharge of legally enforceable debt'

10. On behalf of accused one Mr.E.Srinivas Raju was Examined as DWI ald he stated that he knew A.2 from his Childhood and A2 started Telugu movie under the name and Style as "TOLIPATA". DW1 further stated that he joined along with the accused in the said production by investing Rs.15 laths and he made one S.Lakshmi Narayana, Mahendra and G. Dayakar Reddy as Financers for the said film. During the film shooting suiting in the ) yerr,'EOOS one Nagendra Solalki invested Rs. 11,05,000/- ,) 5 EW,J CrLR.c.No.1529 of 2074 hence, he was made as Co-Producer in the presence of de- facto complainant. As a security accused gave three blank signed cheques to Mr.Nagender Solanki in the presence of complainant and they participated in shooting places. When the said hlm was ready to' release Mr.Nagender Solanki forced the accused to pay back his invested amount in the said film, also filed case under Section 138 of NI Act by using blank cheque which was given as security and in the said'case the accused was convicted and against that case Criminal Appeal is Pending. Complainart in this Case, filed case against the accused basing on another signed blank cheque, with the help of Mr.Nagender Solanki by taking blank cheque from him. DW 1 further asserted in his evidence that neither complainant gave arnount to accused nor accused issued cheque to complainant in this Case.

11. It is observed by the trial Court that the stand taken by the accused in this case was that the complainalt - herein had taken the blank Solanki and hled this false cheoue from .""" *S", Mr.Nagender accused, that ) ) * 6 EW'J crLR-c.No.7529 of 2O74 .- \.---.1 ) means Mr.Nagender Solanki got flled this false case through the complainant herein' If that being the version of accused, what made him to issue to Ex'PS in the name of the complainant. It is contended in Ex'P8 that the accused ieceived a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs as hand loan for the purpose of setting up a Digital Studio' The said amoult has been received on four differerlt dates' The accttsed had undertaken and promised to repay the same within six months and accordingly, a post dated cheque bearing No.505464 dated 1 l-12-2OOg was drawn or Oriental Bank of Commerce, Srinagar Colony Branch' Hyderabad for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs i.e', Rs'13 lakhs principal and Rs'2 lakhs towards goodwill has been issued to Mr'C'Prashalth Reddy/complainant. PW1 in his Cross Examination admitted that he paid Rs'13 lakhs to the accused in different dates, so the averments covered under Ex'P8 are corroboratedwiththeevidenceofPWl,withregardtomode of palT nents to the accused' The Signatures on Ex Pl and P8 were neither denied by the accused nor Challenged' When once the accused admitted his signatures on Ex'P1 PB including its contents it can be presumed under * ) ) l I 1 EW,J Crl.R.c.No. I 529 of 20 14 Section 139 of NI Act, the accused received the amount as evidenced by PWl and issued Ex.Pl cheque in discharge of Iegally enforceable debt. L2. Though the contention of the accused was that Ex.pl was taken from Mr. Nagender Solanki and the complainant filled it and hled false cas'e against him, but he has not proved that Ex.Pl cheque was l-rlled by the complainant and fiIed this false case. A careful perusal of Ex. p 1 it is evident that the narne of complainant and hgure Rs. 15,00,000 /- atd its words as well as the signature of the accused comprising with one ink pen,

13. A Perusal of Judgement in C.C.No.69l2OlI filed by Mr.Nagender Solanki against Mr.K. Srinvas Reddy/accused therein was ended in conviction. The said Mr.Nagender Solanki filed the case in which the cheque amotrnt involved was for Rs. I 1,05,0O0/-. If that being the case in C.C.No.69/2011 what is the necessity for Mr.Solanki to get the present case f-rled through the complainant herein. So, 1 the vgrsion of accused is unbelievable. ( I i I 8 EW,J CrLR.c.No.1529 oJ 2O74 13 L4. From what is stated above it is clear that the cheque was given to complainant by the accused and it was given towards discharge of an earlier existing debt arrd this cheque was not one of those cheques that were allegedly given to Mr.Solanki by the accused. In the present case on hand, both the Courts hetd that petitioner/ accused was guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for any interference, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgments passed by both the Courts.

15. Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned counsel and relying upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S' Prabhu Vs' Sayed Babalalr, R.Vijayan Vs. Babyz, S.R' Sunil & Company Vs. D.Srinivasavaradan3, Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvia and Somnath Sarkar. 't ' zho (s) scc oor '(20r2) l scc 260 I lzorny ro scc :z o (2015) 9 scc 622 9 EW,J CtLR.c.I,lo.7 529 o.f 2014 Vs. Utpal Basu Mallicks, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 16, The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount \ of Rs. 15,O5,OOO/- to the credit of the trial Court within a ) I l t I period ofone year from the date of this order. Out of which, Rs. 15,OO,OOO/- is directed to be paid to respondent No.1/complainant and Rs.5,000/- shall remain with the State. L7. Upon such deposit, respondent No.1/complainant is directed to withdraw an amount of Rs. 15,OO,OOO/- with immediate effect.

18. If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid direction, the petitioner shall suffer the judgment dated

29.10.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.315 of 2012 on the hle of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad. 5 zon iro; scc aos a G EW,J CrLR.c.lvo.7529 of 20t4 L9. Except the above modif,rcation, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed in all other aspects. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ,ffRUE COPY// ,,3$';1.?ttJilX" I SECTION OF FICER To, 1 2

4. 5 6 Sessions Judge, at The Court of the lV Additional Metropolita Hyderabad The Court of the lV Special Magistrate' Hyderabad' Two ccs to thepubric pro5gatrtor High court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad IOU I I One CC to SRI PUJARI MANI SAHITH' Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI N NAVEEN KUMAR' Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPies ?k Pcsd/gh ) ) * I HIGH COURT DATED:2710112025 L)n 1 t S t'4 ( 2 3 AllE 206 ,J a o () r1 C. {' I C '-1tr --.--1. ORDER CRLRC.N0.1529 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE WITH CERTAIN MOD!FICATIONS (ra- ,a' ?