The High Court · 2025

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 2341 OF 2013 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.188 of 2O11 as Confirmed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad in CrlA.No.669 of 2012, dt.09-10-2013. Between: SYED AKTHAT ABID ZAlDl, S/o.M.A.Said, aged 54 R/o.H.No.1-2-29, Flat No.G'1 , Vykuntam Apartment, Mahal, Hyderabad. yrs., Occ: Business, Badam Gali, Gagan ..PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSEO AND a *"rsftry

1. MODH. SHUJAUDDIN ALI KHAN, S/o.Vikaruddin Ali Kl^ an, aged 30 yrs., Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.506, MCH No 3-6-527, Himayathnagar, Narayaguda, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Represented by its Pub r.: Prosecutor, High Coun: of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...COMPLAINANT ...RESPON CrE:NT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner (rN BOTH THE CASES) :SRl. P. VAMSHEEDI'l\R REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'l (IN BOTH THE CASES) :NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No.2 (rN BOTH THE CASES) : PUBLIC PROSECIJ IOR (TG) The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICD E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.234O and.234L of 2OL3 COMMON ORDER: Ms.B.Ratnamala, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Vamshidhar Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.Nos.2340 and 2341 of 20 13 would submit that though elforts have been made by the counsel to contact the revision petitioner to obtain instructions, they could not contact the revision petitioner and prays to decide the matter on merits.

2. Despite service of notice on the unofhcial respondent in both the revision petitions, there was no representation before this Court on behalf of the unofficial respondent.

3. Criminal Revision Case No.2340 of 2Ol3 is hled under Sections 397 and.4O 1 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 09.10.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2012 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, conhrming the judgment dated 27.06.2072 in C.C.No.192 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the XX Additionai Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.l. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a hne of Rs.1O,OO0/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

4. Criminal Revision Case No.2341 of 2013 is filed under Sections 397 and 4O1 Cr.P.C. pssailing the judgment dated O9.1O.2013 passed / 2 in Criminal Appeal No.669 of 2Ol2 by the iearned Metr,rprlitan Sessions Judge, Hyderzrbad, conhrming the judgment datecl. )7.06.2012 tn C.C.No.188 of 2O11 on the hle of the Court of the XX ,\dditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein anc whereby the petitioner was lound guilty of the offence punishable unc er Section 138 of N.I. Act, con'ricted and sentenced to undergo simple i.oprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.lO,00()' , in default, to sulfer simple irnprisonment for one month.

5. The issr:es involved in these criminal ret'ir'i tn cases are intrinsically interconnected and thcrefore, they are 1i'rl(:rn up and are being drsposed of by this common order.

6. The facts; leading to filing of the present revision ,r.lses are briefly as follows: The petit-ioner is the lease and licence agreemell t holder of Hotel Hardeez Cafe in Lhe premises bearing MCH No.3-(, .]65/8, in the ground floor situated at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad i'rr cl the petitioner is very irregular in payment of licence fee in res p,,::t of the said premises. On several requests and demands, hnally th(r .tetitioner came forward and executed a promissory note on 26.01.2O\. r:onforming the outstanding arnount to the tune of Rs.7,86,500/- as on ii0.01.201 1 and also issued r:ight post dated cheques, including .:treque bearing Nos.366876, 366877 and 366874, dated 10.04.2O11 10.O5.2O11 and lO.O2.2Ol1 respectively, each for a sum of Rs. 1,OC],().)O/ -. The first , I l I i i ) J respondent presented the said cheques Axis Bank Limited' Himayathnagar Branch, Hyderabad, and the said cheques were bouncedoni1.05.201l,14.O5.2Ol1and11.032011respectively,with ,funds insufhcient' and the bank authorities have given an endorsement cheque return memos to that effect. On receipt oT the same, the first respondent got issued legal notices to the petitioner on 18'05'2011 and 1 1.03.201 1 i.e. within the statutory period of hfteen days and the petitioner did not accept the cover containing the notice. Then the first respondent filed the complaints within thirty days' The cases were taken on fi1e under Section 138 of N.l. Act and were numbered as C.C.Nos.188 ar'd 192 of 2O 1 1.

7. During the course of trial, the first respondent got himself examined as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs.P. 1 to P 9 and Exs P'1 to P 7 in both cases.

8. Basing on oral, documentary evidence and other material available on record, the trail court arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.LAct, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra' Feeling aggrieved by the judgments of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeals Nos.668 and 669 of 2Ol2 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appellate Court after reappraising the oral and documentary evidence available on record, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty of the offence 4 punishable tLnder Section 138 of N.l. Act and accordi:r14ly confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the petiticner by the trial Courl-. Hence I he present revision cases. g. Now the points for determination in the CrrmL:'zrl Revision Cases are "Whether the concurrent frndings of fact recortled by the Courts below is pen'erse and not sustainable in law?" POINT

10. It is a settled PrinciPle that it has not been { ) pen for the High concurrent hndings of the courts below Court to interlere with the specially by re-appreciating the e.zidence in exe t ::ise of revisional jurisdiction. 1 1. It is not the case of the petitioner that he :lid not issue the cheques in favour of the first respondent. The predc nrinant contcntion of the learnr:d counsel for the petitioner is that the ' f reque in question was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceatrlr: debt. However, the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishor:t; ttred lor wanL of sufhcient funds. The first respondent got issued a 1e11a1 notice directing the petitiont:r to pay the amount covered under tht ::heque within 15 days from l.he date of receipt of the notice. A perr-rsal of the record clinchingly establishes that the {irst respondent proved issuance of cheques by the petitioner. Once the first respr:rrdent proves the issuance ol the cheques and dishonour of the r;ame for want of ) 5 sufficient funds, the Court can draw a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque in question was issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt, unless contrary is proved. A careful perusal of the record establishes that the first respondent hled the complaint after following the procedure contemplated under Section 138 of N.l.Act.

12. A perusal of the record reveals that in the cross-examination of p.w.1 nothing is elicited to shake his testimony so far as lhe issuance of the cheques by the petitioner for discharge of legally enforceable debt. The first respondent has followed the procedure laid down under section 138 of N.I. Act scrupulously. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The appellate Court also conhrmed the hndings recorded by the trial court. The material placed before the court clinchingly establishes that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The findings recorded by the Court below are based on material much less legally admissible evidence Hence, I am of the considered view that it is not a lit case to interfere with the hndings recorded by the Courts below.

13. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellate Court passed the judgment on O9.10.2O13 and was enlarged on bail in pursuance of the orders of this court dated 30. 10.2013- The fact remains that the I t 6 petitioner was in jaii for a period of three weeks. .l-he record further reveals that thc petitioner paid the hne amount of I*;, 1O,000/_ in each case. As of now, the petitioner is aged about 66 y€,irrs. The petitioner has been attending the Courts since 201 1. Therelr> ^e, the petitioner might have undergone mental agony for all these .yl:itrs. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the cas:, this Court is of the opinion that instead of sending the petitioner to,rarl at the age of 66 years for the alleged offence, directing the petitioner tl) pay the cheques amount i.e., Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees three lakn ; only) to the complainantT first respondent would meet the ends of :sLice.

14. Accordingly, thc petitioner is directed to pay t.rt cheque amounL to the complzrinant in C.C.Nos.lgg and I92 of 2Ot I rn the file of the learned XX Arlditionar chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I.11.derabad, within one (O1) year from today. In default, the petitionr:. shall serve the sentence imposed b1, the courts below. 15 Except the above modification, in all other aspects, these revisions are dismissed _ Consequently, miscellaneou s Fretitions , if any , pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand disn'issed. //TRUE GOPY// sll-A.v.s. PRASAD REGISTRAR I , , sdcloN oFFtcER To, 1 The XX Additional Chief Metropolitan t\/agistrate -lyderabad The Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Cou!-t fo!'the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to liRl. P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY Advocate [(.,PUC] Two CD Copies 4 5 )-. HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112025 .,'- .) :) t'-. \ '>' \. il [siPm .r) ,. -*',../ , sr,' ' " ","-' .-'l - - :a:-..:-::-*-r;-' COMMON ORDER CRLRC.No.2340 & 2341 ot 20'13 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES WITH CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS g 1t d1,/gZl