The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HOI\TBLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA D]' /I EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2279 OF :iOlO ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is hted, agg r eved by the Judgment in Crl.Appeal No.292 of 2OO9 dated O4.O .2O10 on the hle of learned II Additional Metropolitan Se; ;ions Judge, Hyderabad, conhrming the judgment in C.C.No.705 >f 2005 dated

27.O8.2OO9 on the file of learned X Additionat Chie :r Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. (for short ,.trial Co rrt,,), for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrumen . {ct (for short 'NI Act).

2. The facts of the case are that the complainan- a chit run by accused No. l-Chit Fund Company has joined in rf u,hich the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the Managing Directors, arLr the de-facto complainant stood as a successfui bidder of thr chit in 48n monthly auction and towards the payment of pricr: amounl, the impugned two cheques were issued to her and thos: were presented for clearance, but both the cl dishonored for want of sufficient funds and thus. two cheques eques were a statutory notice was issued to accused Nos. 1 to 3, but they .,r :re returned as un-claimed and thereafter, the present complair : is hled for prosecution of accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offencc Lr rder Section .- \"'-'*j \l 2 ETD,J CRLRC.No 2279 2010 138 of the NI Act. On examining the evidence adduced before it' the trial Court has convicted the accused and sentenced the accused No. l-Company represented by accused No2 and 3 to pay a hne of Rs.5,000/- and that the said fine amount shall be payable by accused No.2 and 3' Further, accused No'2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a ltne of Rs.5,OO0/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused No.3 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of hne she had to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days Thus, total amount of hne which was imposed against accused Nos' 1 to 3 was Rs. 13,000/- apart from the sentence of imprisonment' The matter was carried on in the Appeal and the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, while confirmiirg the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court vide C'C No'705 of 2005 by its judgment daled 27.08.2009. The appeal was disposed of on 14.O7 .2OlO against which the present revision is preferred' Inspite of the matter being listed under the caption for

3. dismissal, none appeared for the petitioners' Though the revision case was preferred in 2O10 and is kept pending for a period of 15 - ., I]TD,J (lRI.RC No 2279 2010 years, the petitioner counsel has not advanced arglr tents. Hence, it is treated as heard and this Court ventures _r answer the grounds raised the petitioner herein

4. The revision petitioner has contended th:L the Courts below have erroneously convicted the accused fo: the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and passed sentence of imprisonment and fine and that they ought not to ]l Lve convicted accused No.3 by relying upon Section 141 of the I I Act as the notice does not disclose that accused No.3 was all;r responsible for the conduct of day to day business of accused X r . l _company. It is further contended that the Courts below out to ,t rve o"..pffi the defense faced by the accused No.2, which is; probable in nature and the trial Court and the Appellate Court out to have acquitted the accused. It is further contended b1, the revision petitr@er that the complaint is barred by limitation rr rcl that after the dishonor of cheque, the notice was issued on 29. )5.2005 and subsequently again a second notice was issued on 2g.OT.2OO5, based on the cause of action in respect of the secorLr notice, the complaint is hled which is contrary to law. Thus, tlLr trisl eep.1 and the Appellate Court failed to consider the said Ia:t and have convicted the accused erroneously. It is further cor _ended that the complainant failed to establish the gu t of the acr,r sed bevond 3rt &g .- \ \] 4 ETD,J CRLRC.No.2279 2010 reasonable doubt and hence, the conviction is not just and proper.

5. Perused the record.

6. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are husband and wife and were managing the DJBJ Chit Fund company Private Limited Ex PI shows that it is a Pass Book issued to the de-facto complainant by accused No. l-Company and accused Nos 2 and 3 are the Managing Directors of accused No.-1 Chit Fund Company Thus' the contention of the revision petitioner that accused No'3 is not responsible for conducting of day to day business is not tenable' 7 . Another contention is that the trial Court and the Appellate Court must have accepted the defense raised by the accused No'2' If this is examined, before the trial Court, accused No'2 has raised twodefenses.Thelrrstonebeingthattheimpugnedchequeswere drawn and issued by accused No 2 to the complainant when she approached the accused with a request for extending a loan of Rs.2,16,006/- and at lhe time of handing over Lhe cheques to the complainant, she was asked to present these two cheques only after clearing the earlier loans to a tune of Rs'40,OOO/ - which she borrowed from the accused and their family members and that the complainant was habituated to obtain the loans and thus' has agreed to such condition put by the accused No 2 for clearance lt 5 E'I D,J IRI-RC No 2279 2010 is further contended by accused No.2 that sensing th: ill intention of the complainant and by apprehending that she ma / present the impugned cheques for clearance, in violation c { the agreed condition, he has withdrawn all the funds from the account pertaining to the impugned cheques and due :o that the impugned cheques were dishonored for the reason "insufficient funds". Thus, his contention is that the cheques w(l e not issued towards discharging legally enforceable debt, but th r y were given to the complainant towards a loan. The said defense r n the face of it appears to be far from truth. The accused No.2 eimself says that there are earlier unpaid loans by the complain Lnt in which case, he could not have advanced any further amour ts. trven if it is believed that he has advanced the amounts thrcr gh cheques, then in case if he wanted to stop the clearance of I re same, he could have given stop payment instructions to the I ank, but he could not have r.vithdrawn the said amounts to r ishonor the cheques. The accused No.2 in order to prove the sail defense has not even hled a statement of account to shor,l. hat he has withdrau'n the said amounts on a particular date in ; rpport of his contention. Further, there is ample evidence on re l rrd to prove that thc complainant was a subscriber of chit unde - Ex.P1 and also that she stood as a successful bidder. It is furtl er pertinent to take note of the fact that if at all he had to advan: : a loan, the 6 ETD,J CRLRC-No 2279 2010 ! arnount shown in the cheques is Rs.2,15,006/- which is abnormal. The accused No.2 himself has stated that the complainant has approached him for a hand loan, but no person would approach for a such figure of Rs.2,15,0O6/-. At one instance it is mentioned that the complainant has approached seeking a ioan of Rs.2,O0,0O0/-, in which case how and why the accused was handed over a cheque for Rs.2,15,OO6/- is a big question. Thus, the said defense has no legs to stand.

8. Another defense taken by the accused is that the present complainant is lodged by the complainant based on the second notice dated 28.07 .2OOS and that the complainant failed to initiate prosecution based on the first notice dated 29.05.2005 and thus, it is contrary to law. The trial Court has examined [his point in a detailed manner and it was observed that the hrst notice did not have the characteristics of statutory notice. According td the complainant, she got issued only one notice i.e. , trx. P6 to the accused when the impugned cheques were dishonored on second occasion and it is her contention that trx.P6/notice was the only notice which was hrst and last notice. The accused has filed Ex- D 1 which was a reply notice dated

29.O5.2OO5. The said notice discloses that it is issued in reply to the notice served by the complainant to the counsel for accused {./ 7 ETD,J CRLRC.No.2279 2010 No.2 on 2l.O5.2OOS under Ex.D2. The said Exs.D and D2 were marked in cross examination of the compl: i rant on her admission. A perusal of the contents of the Ex.D2 s rows that it is a notice issued by de-facto complainant stating tL z t the cheques issued in favour of the complainalt were dishonore < . Ex.Dl is the reply notice to the said notice under Ex.D2. In li <.D1 the Chit transaction pertaining to this case and the issualr: : of impugned cheques by accused No.2 towards payment of pri,: amount and the dishonor of these two cheques on pres( ntation were mentioned arrd in the last paragraph of trx.D 1, rt 'that a request u'as made to the counsel for the e t advice to the accused for payment of amount cove r is mentioned cused to give :d by the two dishonored cheques. Thus, there was no mentir n about the repayment of the amount within a stipulated per c d and that if repayment is not made, he would be liable for pro; rcution under Section 138 of the NI Act.

9. The contention of the accused is that Ex.D2 s a statutory notice and that the complainant failed to lodp,t prosecution pursuant to the said reply notice under Ex.D 1 tnd that the prosecution should not be based on Ex.p6. It ts pertinent to mention in this regard lhat under Ex.D I the na:r e of accused No.1 Chit Fund Company is not mentioned and alsLr rffi&cd No.2v \ \. 8 ETD.J CRLRC N0.22?9 2010 -r is not portrayed as Managing Director of accused No'1-Company' Further, there is no mention of dates on which the impugned cheques were presented and were dishonored and there is no such condition mentioned in the said notice stipulating the repayment of amount under the dishonored cheques within 15 days on receipt of the notice ald failing which prosecution would be launched Thus' the contents of Ex'D 1 do not compiy the iequirement under Section 138 of the NI Act Hence' it cannot be held to be a statutory notice' whereas Ex'P6 has all the components required under the statute and thus' Ex'P6 is- considered to be the statutory notice' foliowing which the prosecution is launched' Hence' the defense raised by the accused on this count also fails' 10. With the ample evidence piaced on record to show that the cheques were issued towards legaliy enforceable debt and that on their presentation in the Bank, they were returned for the reason of ,.insufhcient funds" was established beyond all reasonable doubt before the triai Court' Hence' none of the grounds raised by the accused are tenable' Therefore' it is held that the concurrent hndings of conviction hetd by the trial Court and the Appellate Court do not suffer from any infirmity and that they are based on welr found reasoning and hence, the Revision case lacks merits' r/ / 9 ETD,J CRLRC.No 2279 2010

11. In the result, the Criminal Revision case is dii nissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if an.r shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// S D/- T. VIJAY KUMAR r EPUTY REGISTRAR .?(_?- SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The X Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate, Secun'l rrabad. 2. One CC to SRl. P NAGENDRA REDDY Advocate [OFt C] 3. One CC to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court f I the State of 4. Two CD Copies Telangana, Hyderabad [OUt] d ASR / SA HIGH COURT DATED:1311012025 ORDER CRLRC.No .2279 of 2010 .a ,{i, /.1 l' ,-.r \,'.'- \\ 'v I I L:.i: t_gy5 DISMISSING THE CRLRC \ e cfh \ \ a