Aswath Narayana Reddy H.M v. 1. The State o[ Telangana

Office'at No.802, Astral Heights, D. No.6-3-3522 853, Road No. 1, Baniara Hills. Hvderabad-SOO Oa+. And branch Office at No. 34' 3rd Floor, Lotus T;Grs: Devarai URS Road, race course, Bengaloure-560 001 Rq'}Ieseted by its Mhnagrer an{ the Power of Attomey Holder Shri. M. Devaraj S/o' T'R' Muniyappa Aged about 39 Years ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the time for period of one week for the pupose of depositing of amount of Rs.gd-t o,ooO/- towards the payment into the credit of the C.C.No.251l2O'17 on the file Hon'ble (l! Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Narnpal y. Earlier on the file of Hont:'lr: .(Xl special magistrate, at Erramanzal, as pcr the orders in R.C.No.99t ctf '2).)-1, dt.OBlO1l2O2s passed by the Hon'bte t-ligh 3ourt and in the interest of Ju stir,er. Counsel for the lretitioner : Sri S Vijaya Prashanth Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Public prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Mr. V. Durga prasad The Court rr arle r the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.\/. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.99 OF 2O2L ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment dated O9.O2.2O21 passed in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2018 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court"), confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned XXI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.25 | of 2Ol7 dated 19.01-2O18 wherein the revision petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act.) and sentenced to undergo simpte imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.50,1O,OO0/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Ten Thousand Only), in default to undergo sentence of imprisonment for (O3) months' In the event of realizing the said hne amount, a sum of Rs.5O,O0,OOO/- shall be paid to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P'C. as compensation.

2. Heard Mr.S.Vijay Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No'2 - complainant is M/s.Aparna Constructions and Estates Pvt'Ltd', represented by its General Power of Attorney/ M. Devraj / PW I and the accused is carrying on the business of identitying agricultural-and 2 converted lz.r Lrls and arralging for its procurement fc,r prospective purchas,:r:;, : Ls; such, he approached the complaina nt z,nd offered to procure 2() a.res of land at Chimbenahalli Vill:rge, Sarjapura Hobli, A.ekal Talrrl: 3engalore Urban District and entered into :nemorandum of undersiar cLing dated 14.O6.2OL2-trx.p5 and Men Lorandum of understanrtin,; for nomination and assignment dI.14.03.irO13 _ Ex.p6. Under th,: s;aid memorandums, the accu secl re ceived total consider:iti,rr. r f Rs. 1,5O,0O,OOO/- from the complainlnt rnd admitted acknowlcdS: rr t nt and encashment, but failed to perform ris obligation and chc;itr d the complainant. Ultimately, the accus<,d agreed to refund the saii amount received by him as advance cons;deration and to pay R s. I ,t)O,00,O00/- towards costs anc, dama ges to the complain,rr t I I' cancelling the earlier MoUs and errterr d into third MOU, dale(j I ] 03.2015 - Ex.p7. Accordingly, thr-, ac,:use d issued five post dated ch:ques i.e. dated 2S.O4.2Ol:5, 25.O;.2(ttS, 25.O6.2OLS, 27.O7.2O)5 ar'c 26.08.2O1S each for Rs.5O,OO,0OO/. in tavour of the complain:Ln . Ihe disputed cheque bearing No.0164O0 - ilx.pg, dated 26.08.2015 lr:r Rs.50,OO,OOO/- drawn on tNG Vysya Bark Ltd., HSR Layour brar .c,r, Bengalore is one of them. When th,: sard cheque is presented tirro.,;gh Andhra Balk, Somajiguda branch or-r O6.0 1.2OIS, the sam(: \ri. si returned unpaid with an endorser rent .funds insuflicie r t' v i Je cheque return memo _ Ex_I)9, thet eupon, the complainant qr t issued statutory legal noticc _ Ex.pI() to the accused through I'lP,\l) postal receipt - Ex.pl r and thc sarri notice was ) returned unserved with endorsement t-rnclaimed' under postal envelop - Ex.P12. Hence, the complainant has Iiled a complaint under Section 2OO of the Cr.p.C. against the accused for the commission of an offence Punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act'

4.ThetrialCourt,videjudgmentdatedlg.ol.2o18inC.C.No.25I of 2017, found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable rrnder Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple irnprisonment for one year and pay hne of Rs.SO, IO,OOO/ - (Rupees Fifty Lat<trs Ten Thousand Only), in default to undergo sentence of i.npri"o.r-".rt for (O3) months. In the event of realizing the said frne arnount, a sum of Rs.5O,OO,0OO/- shall be paid to the complainant Llnder Section 357(lxb) of Cr'P'C' as compensation' Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction dated 19'O1'2O18 S- irr C.c.No.25 I of 2017, the accused has preferred an appeal before the Crt.A.No. I 13 ol 2O18, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad which came to be dismissed on 09 'O2'2o21' conFrrming the judgment the petitioner has Fassed by the trial Court' Assailing the same' Freferred this revision petition' 1n It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 6 - itrrpugned Judgments and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is bad. in law as both the Courts below have not considered the svidence and documents producecl by the petitioner-accused and not 4 applied i ls rrdicial mind and only relying upon the evidence and document s troduced by the complainant, the l,_.arn:d Magistrate arrived to 1r,r (,ng conclusion and convicted the acctrsed It is further urged thal tt r i*rpugned Judgments are only based on inferences and presuml)t],lrr bt-lt not based on real facts and mzrter.ial o:r record. It is further u'gc I by the learned counsel for thr: pt:titioner that the complairranr- 'ailed to discharge initial burden o[ debt c,rst upon him under la,x,. l-ir,:refore, he seeks to allow this Revision.

7. Pel cor.r.r.a, the leamed counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently justified tlc < oncurrent hndings of conviction and subrnits that the petitioner Ira,; not led any evidence to rebut the presrlmp Sjon which is mandatory '['lrr: transaction even though denied by lhc petitioner, no clinching r r; j:nce was produced to rebut the prt sun ption. The Courts belr'* ,ri-tcr considering the oral and docurnentary evrdence on record, riqlrtl.i rccorded the conviction and there is no infirmit5z or illegality i. r h,: findings of the Courts below, theref rrc, interference with the sar,1 [ rrdings may not be warranted. Having subrnitted thus, learned c<tu rl;, 1 lor respondent No.2 prays to ctismiss ,he revision petition.

8. Ttris C tLr.r being a Revisional Court, having regiLrd ro the scope and [imits crvts: ged to appreciate the facts and law, ir is necessary to have a cur:;orr itok upon the evidence and also the lar.r.. to ::scerlain as 5 to whether any illegality or perversity or error committed by the Courts below in recording the conviction. g. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 4O1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to te-analyze and re- interpret the evidence on record.

10. On beha,lf of the complainant, the trial Court examined PWI and marked Exs.Pl to P12. On behalf of the defence, the petitioner-accused himsetf examined as DWl arrd got marked Exs-Dl to D3' Upon careful scmtiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court obsewed that the accused did not rebut the presumpLion under Section 139 ol NI Act, with any convincing material or evidence ald the complainant established its case that the accused issued Ex'P8 cheque , in favour of the complainalt towards discharge of tegally enforceable liability, therefore, the trial Court held that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act' Further' in the appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment Passed by the trial Court and dismissed the aPPeal.

11. The plea of the accused is that PWl and his other employees threatened him and forcibly obtained trx.P7-MOU and five blank signed cheques trdm him. The trial Court observed that he did not give anv 6 complairt 11r Jrolice or notice to the complainant th(rt tt e said Ex.p7- MOU and f) I P8 subject cheque were obtained fr:m him by force threateninll I im. But the accused did not do so ztnd therefore, his subsequ,:n t ccnduct ir-r maintaining silence till trial u.a,; commenced goes aga.n,;[ ] is dcfence and also improbablises the defen,:e . L2- Th'ir 'r( r rscd admitted in his cross examination tha, under Ex.p5 agreemerrt :rt: received Rs.9,OO,0O0/_ on 1O.O5.2O 12, ?s.9 1,00,00O/ on 14.06.20|t' :.r rrl also received Rs.50,O0,0OO/_ ttrrougi R.].rGS probably in the ye:rr 20 t2 from the complainant, total of the said a,nount comes to Rs.I,50.l() tr00/-. It is the defence of the accused in the cross examinat.o'L r lutt alter receiving the said amountsi he paicl the same to the larmcrs / l:.rrd owners as instructed by the comptrdna rt. The trial Court obs,c;'vr:r I lhat the accused did not prove with z nt, locumentary or other )r'ir cvidence that he paid Rs. l,l>O,O,),OC,O/- to the farmers/lan C ( \,,rners on the instructions oi the complztina rt, therefore, he himsel's::r i'rg evidence in the said context holds no w,rter and it is not belier, al )1,: ils true. The trial Court furthei- obsened that the complainan ,:lrC not fiIe IT returns showing that the sai l amount of Rs. 1,5O,0(),()OrJ / - u,as paid to the accused, but when he accused himsclf adr.'Lri,c d that he received the said am )un from the complaina rr t r r r:ugh RTGS, as such, not filing of IT retr Lrns has no consequenc( rn t his case. 7

13. The reasons given by both the Courts below are based on record, reasonable and probable and have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offence and that he has failed to rebut the presumption, hence, this Court is not in a position to interfere with those concurrent hndings and facts regarding the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 13a of NI Act. In the result, the concurrent frndings made by the Courts below regarding the conviction of the petitioner is legally proper and correct and are not amenable for any revisional interference at the hands of this Court.

14. This Court after careful consideration of the records available, is of the considered view that respondent No.2 has proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and the petitioner faited to rebut the same by adducing cogent and convicting evidence in order to rebut the presumption.

15. As far as the sentence is concerned, it is seen that the trial court had sentenced the revision petitioner - accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a direction to pay fine of Rs.5O, 10,O0O/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Ten Thousand Only), in default to undergo sentence of imprisonment for (O3) months. In the event of realizing the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.5O,0O,OOO/- shall be paid to the complainant under Section 357(1Xb) of Cr.P.C. as compensation' The appellate Court has concurred the said sentence and compensatitrn amount. The Apex Court, in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs' ,/ 8 Sayed Baba.[:Ll1 and M/s. Gimpex (pl Ltd. Vd. Manc,j Grreal2, has held that the olfer r:e of dishonour of cheque envisaged ir Se< tion l3g of NI Act is esse eti ltly a civil wrong which has been gi,ren :rim inal overtones by tie lc:lisrlative interventions made through thr: anendments of the NI A,:t an I that imposition of fine payable as cornpe,lsation to the complai.a rrt, '.r'ould be suflicient to meet the ends of jr rstice. Unless aril ,lx ( € ptional and compelling circumstancr.s w arranting the rmpositic,n o1 aubstant-ve sentence, sentence o[ ap1.rrqp1i21s fin6 amount w,.rtrl I suffice. This Court is dehnitely of rhe riew that the substantiv, !;(.ntence of one year simple imprisorrmeltt inrposed by the courts belr.rrr. s rather excessive and dispropo rtionate Since, the complaint ircr-;rins to the year 2OIZ and. the trial Ccurt :onvicted the petitioncl n -)re year 2O18 and the appellate Court c cnlirmed the judgment r:f lt e conviction and sentence in thr: year 2 02 I and the petitioner i., :r,1,:d about 58 ycars would have undergonc .nental agony by roami,g a r >.r,d the Courts till today, therefor-, th is C:urt is of the considerecl tpr; r ion that thc sentence of imprisonmen t car-r be reduced to the fin<: (.orr [)onent.

16. Exceirt -hc stands disrnr; ;,:cl , above modihcation, the Crinrinal Rr:vision Case in all other aspects. However, the petitioner is directed -o [)iL.r compensation of amounts if a r r.r dsp65ited before Rs.5O, 10,0O0/- (inclrrsive of the the tria[ court) to t re credit of ' 20 to 15y 56-6 1,,, . t (rozz) rt scc ,o: \ 9 C.C.No.251 ot2Ol7 on the file of the learned triat Court on or before OS.OZ.ZOZS- Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.5O,OO,OOO/- shall be paid to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357(lxb) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of Rs.I0,OOO/- shall be confiscated by the State towards fine. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer imprisonment of one year. The bail bonds ofthe petitioner shall stand cancelled. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ]SMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Metropotitan Session 2 The XXt Special magistra 3. Two CCs to public pros Hyderabad. (OUT) I [ ' s Judgge, Hyderabad, at Nampally. te, Hyderabad, at Erramanzil. ecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at I

4. One CC to Sri S Vijaya prashanth, Advocate IOPUC] : 9n" 99 to Mr. V. Durga prasad, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies - DUgh o HIGH COUFIT DATED:08/01/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.99 c f 2021

41. c ;,:.rr{\ Y4. \ ( ? il lrtir zm o-{' o o ,1 DISMISSINC TFt: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE )) u,