Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalalz, R. Vijayan vs Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvis, Somnath

R/o.H.No.5l12-515/1, Srinivasa Colony, BTS, Nalgonda Town and District ...RESPONDENTS/ Complainant lA NO: 3 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the time granted in the or-ders dt. 2710912020 in I A NO 2 of 2020 in CrIRC No.39'1 of 2O2O for deposrt of compensation amount . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. PRADEEP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI E, GANESH ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Ms. X.HEMALATHA The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.391 QF 2OlO ORDER: This Crirninal Revision Case is filed .b,, the petitioner aggrieved by tt-e. judgment dated 29.06.2O2O in (triminal Appeal No.2OB of 2Ol( on the file of the learned IV Adclitional Sessions Judge (ll FTC) , at Nalgonda (for short, 'the appellate Court") ponfirming the ruclgment dated 15.12.2O16 in C.C:.No.498 of 2013 on the file of tlre learned Judicial Magistrate ol- First Class, at Nalgoncla (for sJrort, "the trial Court").

2. Heard M r-.K.Pradeep Reddy, learned c(,rlnsel for the petitioner, Mr.li.Gatresh, learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearir-rg for respondent No.1-State and Ms.K.Hemalatha, learnecl counsel lor lespondent No.2.

3. The bricl facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainalt and petitioner/ accused are wel; knou,n to each other, due to rvhich, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.7,50,0OO/- as loan on O1.07.2011 with inter:st @.24o/" per annum from the complainant, in the presence of one Dasari ) Nagaiah and P. hlarayanzr and promised to repay him; that the complainant approached the accused several times and 7 demanded him to pay the arnount due along with interest' On St repeated requests, accused issued cheque bearing No'O1738 d.ated.29.12.2012 for an amount of Rs.1O,OO,000/- in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement "funds ' insufficient". The complainant issued legal notice dated 25.01.2O13 to the accused calling upon him to repay the cheque amount of Rs.10'0O,000/- within 15 days. The accused received the said notice but failed to pay the said amount. Hence, the complainant Iiled the present complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act').

4. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 15.12.2016 in C.C.No.498 of 20 13, found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months; ordered to pay compensation of Rs.15,OO,OOO/-, in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal. 7 {..r J A 5. The appc llate Court, vide impugned judgnrent, dismissed the Appeal conlirming the judgment passed by the trial Court Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision

6. Learnecl <:ounsel lor the petitioner contended that the trial Court as u,ell as the appellate Court failed tc, appreciate the evidence on r:cord in proper perspective and passed their respective juclgrnent.s. Therefore, he seeks to allou, this Revision.

7. Lcarned r\ssistant Purblic Prosecutor and l,:irned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that both thr. Courts, upon careful scrutin) ol- the material available on record rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Re',ision.

8. On behalf of the complainant, the trial Oourt examined PWs.l and 2 and marked Exs.Pl to p7. On betLalf of accused, DWl was exantined and Ex D1 was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that the accused failed to prove that, PW 1 came into possession of the cheque/Ex P2 and promissorv note/Ex pl \ which urgs give n to him by one Prem Sunder, as per his contention. Sinc,r, the accused failed to prove his r:ontention that he has not issued the subject cheque and as ttrer cs6pl2ip2n1 4 proved through oral and documentary evidence, that Exs.Pl and P2 were executed by the accused in discharge of legally h enforceable debt, the trial Court rendered its judgment.

9. In the appeal, the appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the evidence available on record, also observed that the complainant has successfully established about the existence of legally enforceable debt in between him and accused under Ex Pl and that the cheque in question i.e., Ex P2 was issued towards discharge of the same. Therefore, relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments lPl Ltd., and another Vs. Kanchan Mehtal, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. lO. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, relying on the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalalz, R. Vijayan Vs. Baby3, S.R. Sunil & Company Vs. D. Srinivasavaradan4, Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvis, Somnath ' u olu (z) aLo crl.968 sc 'zoro 1s; scc oer '1zo tz) t scc zoo o (20 14) r 6 scc 12 5 (2015) 9 scc 622 w 5 o Sarkat Vs. Utpal Basu Mallicke and Gimpex lP) Ltd Vs. Manoj Goel, upon ct,nsidering the fact that the petitirtner underwent mentai agony ltv roaming around the trial Cour1, as well as the appellate Cour:, this Court deems it appropriate to take a ienient vieu, and reclu,re ttre sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of inrprisonment already undergone br him. I I . The petitionor is directed to deposit urn amount of Rs. I 1,00,000/ inclusive of the amount alread.r paid if any, to the credit of C.(t.No.498 oi 2O 13 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nalgonda, within a period of six (6) months from todal'. If the petitioner fails to compiy with the aforesaid direr:tion, he shall suffer the judgment dated 29.06.2O2O in (lriminal Appeal No.2OB ol 2016 orr the file of the learned IV AddirionzLl Sessions Judge (II FTC), at l,lalgonda.

12. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revisir,n Case stands dismissed Misceilaneous Petitions, pending if any, shalt stand closed. 6 Aon(t) sccrlts //TRUE COPY// SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR I I I t \, SECTION OFFICER First Class, at To 1. The lV Additional Sessions Judge ( ll FTC) The Judic,al Magistrate of with Records if any 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nalgonda. 3. The Station House Officer, Nalgonda I Town-police Slation, Nalgonda. 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court For the State of Telaigana at "lalgonda Hvderabad.{OLrT) =ffi.:rfva9g;r@;# w, l') / !. 9i," cc to SRt. x e_34-gqe_e nEDDy, Advocate [opuc] 6. One CC to Ms. K. HEMALATHA, Advocare lOFUiy 7. Two CD Copies Kdl/psl 4$-- I o \ h . THI: SI,q { c;, io, o o t 17 APn M Ir + ttaf C't?n HIGH COURT DATED:25t0212025 I I ORDER CRLRC.No.391 oI 2(t20 I)lSI\4ISSIN(i TIIFI ('ll l lt ( { ,,{t