Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2012 · The High Court · 2025

Sri K. Satyanarayana, S/o Late Sri K. agabhushanam, Aged about 68 years, Occupation usiness, R/o H.No. 15-2-14, Gowliguda Chaman, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Daita Purnachander Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2634 OF 2013 ORDER: The prcsent criminal revision case is ll:d by the pe titioner/ acc used under Sections 397 and 40 o[ Cr.P.C., aggrieved bv the judgment dated 30.12.2()13 in Cr mrnal Appeal No.206 of 2Ol2 on thc file of the learnecl V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad wherein and u'here .:nder the conviction and sentenced imtosecl against the petition:r vide -judgment dated 29.02.2012 in llC No.497 of 20l1 on the frle of the learnCd XIV Spccial Metropolitan Magistrate , Hyderabad was conhrmt:d.

2. Heard S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learnecl colrnsel for the petitioner, Sri E.Cianesh, learned ilssistant public :rrosecutor for thc responclent No.1 and Sri Daitrr Purnachander Riro, learned counsel for the responden t No. 2.

3. CC No.497 of 20 L 1 or-r the lilc of the tr ral Court is a case regist€ rccl bl the 2"d rcsponcient hcrein alleqing that the petitioner, taking advantage of :rcquaintancc .r.ith the 2nd respondent, on 05.O1.2O06 obtaincd an amount of Rs. I,OO,OOO/- as a loan b5'executing a promisson note and subsr:1lrenrly, upon persistent rlemands made bl thc complainant, he petitioner issued chequc bearing No.781829 dated 01.O3 20O6 for an [)age 2 ol'7 amount of Rs- I ,00,000/ drawn on Vysya Bank, Bidar Branch towards discharge of the sard loan amount and failed to honour the same sincc the said account was closed by the petitioner. Further, vide return memo dated 21.O7.2006 the said cheque was returned for the reason "account closed". The tegal notice dated

16.08.2006 issued to [he petitioner was returned as not claimed. Accordingly, the complainant hled the present calendar case under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that in-spile his compliance of statutory require ments as rcquired under Section 138 of NI Act, the petitioner failed eithcr to rcpay thc amount covered under the subject cheque or gavc any reply and hence, he is liable to be punished under the said statute.

4. During trial, thc complainant got examined himself as PW I and relicd upon Exs. P I to P7, which arc the promissory note, dishonourcd chcque, return memo, legal notice, postal receipt, statutory noticc ancl returncd registered post cover. No oral or documentan' evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. The casc of thc petitioncr is total denial.

5. The trial Court, upon considering the argumenLs submitted on both sides and upon taking into consideration the evidence adduced, has found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo \. I Pase -l o! 7 rtgorous tmpnsonment for six months and to p rr, a line of Rs.3,000/ -, in default to suffer simple imprisonm, .n I for three months for the offence under Section l3g ol NI A .r. The trial Court held that though the accused put-forth sevcra. (.ontentions, he failed to establish the same and thar he also tail,.cl to explain the reason for Lhe 2nd respondent to implicate a strang(.r in a false criminal casr:, his executing a promissory note in fetvour of thc 2,,t respondcnt and his refusal to receive the statLltory nc iice and also his failure in rcpaying the hand loan amount evcn a l(.r issuancr: of statutory nolice or issuing any suitable replv. 6 Aggrieved by the said findings, thc petitiont.r/acr:used preferred crrminal Appeal No.206 of 2or2 on rh( rire of rhe appellate Cor-Lrt which was also dismissed con{.irming rlre iinclings of the trial Ccurt. 7 Aggrieved by the said findings of the app,.llzrte Court, the present criminal revision case is bcing prefer rt ri bv the pe tltloner/ acr:used mainly contending that both the rrial Court and thc Appe)late Court have failed to consider the dt fcncc of thc petitioner with regard to missing cheque book and thz t lre has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the complainant, the complainant, though contended rh.t he sho*,ed r h(_, present transaction in his lT returns, he faited to filc thc sarne in the Palc { of 7 -t! Court, the legal noticc was not sent to the correct address of the petitioner, the trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner for sending the disputed srgnatures on trxs.P1 and P2 for comparison. Stating thus, he prayed to allow the present criminal revision case.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case contending that both the trial Court ancl the appellate Court have appreciated the evidence in a right pcrspect ive ernd gave well considered hndings and hence, the said findings cannot be disturbed.

9. This Court heard the arguments advanced by the respective counsel and peruseci the material available on record. The learned counsel rcprescnting on behall of Lhc petitioncr would submit that the prcsent sultject matter is a covered one and this Court while adjudicating Criminal Revision Casc No.2631 of 2013 basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H1 contending that with respect to the dishonor of the chcques, priority should be given to compensation over Lhe punitive aspcct has sentenced the accused to pay compensation instcad of committing him to prison and r 120tttl s scc 6r,l hence, the samc t-vpe of order may be passed iI Lhe present criminal revision case in the event of confirming t rt findings of the trial Court and appellate Court.

10. Thc petitioner is not disputing his sig'rirture on the subject cheque but his contention is that the same '\'irs onc of the cheques lost by him. Hou'ever, there is nothing on rt'r'<lrd to know thc steps taken by the petitioner in this regard. Furtht:r, il the 2nd respondent is rcally a stranger to him, what made llim to rcfusc the legal notice is not explained. The reasoning grven b1' the pe[itioner uith rcgard to the address mentionecl in trlt legal noticc is not convincing since noti.ce was returned with th" (lndorscmenL "refused" but not as "incorrect or insufhcient addrq;s" Undcr thc Ncgotiable lnstruments Act, there is a presumptio r of service of notice undt:r Section 138 of NI Act that the notice u;r s de livcred to the addressee in the ordinary course of business l'the notice is senl to the accused's lerst known address and it co rr1;lied u'ith all the legal requircments as mandated. The onus is olr the acc:used to prove otherwise. Further, if the summons fror r the Court is rcceivcd blr lhc accused with regard to a case rl dishonor ol cheque, ht: has given a fair opportunity to rep,r1 the cheque arnount wrthin lilteen days from such receipt of surrrrnons. But in the case on hand. there is no such effort made b1- t ri accusecl' Pagc 6 oi 7

11. Law is well settled that once [he cxecution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge o[ any debt or other liability. The presumption undcr Sectir.rn 139 is a re buttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. But in the case on hand, except stating that the cheque was lost, the accused failed to rebut the said presumption. Further, he also failed to adduce any convincing evidence in this regard.

12. When the facts of the case on hand are tcsted on the touchstone of the above settled law, it is crystal clear that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings of thc trial Court or the appellate Court in frnding the a<'cused guiltl' The 2n'r respondent/ complainant could able to esta blish h is case by convincing and cogent evidence. ()n thc other hand, the petitioner/ accused failed to rebut the same. Accordingly, the revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.

13. So far as the contentiott of thc learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner rely'ing on the decision of this Court passed in Criminal Revision C:rse No.263 I of 2O 13 contending that in the event of conltrming the hndings of the trial Court and appellate Court, lenient vieu'may bc taken in favour of \- }' -- l'age 7 ot-7 the pctitioner by imposing fine instead of sentencinp him to jail is concerned, no doubt, it is quite obvious that with respeot to the offence of d shonor of cheques, it is the compensarorv :lspect ol the rcmedy, should be given priority over the puniti, e aspect. In that view of the matter, this Court, to meet the end:r of jtrstice, is inclincd to lirect the petitioner to pay compensati rn to thc 2r1(l responden l/ complzrinant instead of sentencing the pctit ione r to imprisonme rt.

14. Accorclingly, this criminal revision case is disrnissccl. Ho'*,cver, rnstead of committing the petitioner to prison, t hc petitioner is; sentcnced to pay Rs. 1 ,50,O0O/ - (Rup ces one lzrkh and fifty thcusand only) as compensation to be p; ricl to the 2,'(l respondentT complainant u,ithin six months fron L todit1,. Irr dclhult, thc pctiti()ner shall suffer thc sentence av'ardcd by tlte trial Court erncj confirmed by the appellate Court.

15. Misccllaneous application if any penclirrg shrrll stirnd closcC SD/- V.KAVITHA rlEPUrY REGISTRAR \ J \ .l sEcrloN oFFlcER / //TRUE COPY// To, l. V Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge (Mahila ccurt), at Hyderabad 2. XIV Special Magistrate' at Hyderabad 3. One CC tc' Sri S Ashok Anand Kumar' Advocate IOPU ]l 4. One CC-to Sri Daita Purnachander Rao' Advocate [OP JC] STwoCCstothePublicProsecutor'HighCourtfortheslateofTelangana. . - Hvderabad [OUTI Mt u Two cD ooPies SVS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.2634 of 2013 11 sEP m6 i ( '.....,\\, \-' DISMISSING THE CRLRC 1 l'1a