The High Court · 2025

: 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.45 ,OF 2014 ORDER: Thc prcscnr crirrinal rcvision case is liled by the pe titrone r/accused under Sections 397 (21 and 4 0 t of Cr.p.C., aggrieved by thc judgmenr dared 30.t2.2O13 in Criminal Appeal No.2O5 ol 20l2 on rhc file of the learned V Additional MetropoliteLn Scssions .Judge (Mahila Court), Hydr r:rbad wherein and whcre undcr thc corrviction ancl sentenced irtposccl against thc pctitioner vide judgmcnr datcd 29.O2.2O12 in CC No.235 of 2O11 on the hle of rhc learned XIV Specia Metropolitan Magistra tc. Hyclcrabad r,r,:rs confirmed_

2. Heard S.Ashok Anancl Kumar, learned ::ounsel for the pctitioncr, Sri Iil.()ancsh. lcarnccl :r,ssistant p,blic Prosecutor for the respondent No. I itnd Sri Dzrita purnachilnde. Rao. learned counsel for the rcsponclent No.2.

3. CC No.235 ol )0 i 1 on the file of thc rrial Oourt is a case registerecl by thc 2,,,1 respondent herein all,.ging that the petitioner, taking irdvantagc oi acquaintance ,"vith the 2t\tt respond<:nt, in lhc 2,1(r week o[Ja.uar-v,2006 obtai,ed an amount of Rs.2,00,0001 as a ktan by exccuting a promissory note and subscqucnrlr', upon pcrsistenr dcmands m rrle by the complainzrnt, tltr- pcritioncr- isst-rcd cheque beari.rg No.7g1g56 Pagc 2 of7 dared 15,O5.2006 for an amount of Rs.2,O0,OO0/- drau n on Vysya Bank, Bidar Branch towards discharge of the said loan amount and failed to honour the same due to closure of thc said accoun t- Further, vide return mcmo dated 21 .O7 .2006 the said cheque \\'as returned for the reason of closure of the said account. The legal notice dated 2O.O7.2006 issued to the petitioner was returned as not claimed. Accordingly, the complainant filed thc present calendar case under Section 138 of NI Act alleging rhat in-spitc his compliance of statutory requirements as required under Section 138 ol NI Act, the petitioner failed either to repa-v the amount covered under the subject cheque or gave any rcpl,v and hence, he is Iiable to be punished under the said statute .

4. During trial, the complainant got examined himself as PW I and relied upon trxs-Pl to P8, which are the promissory notes, dishonourcd cheque, rcturn memo, legal notice, postal receipt, statutory notice and returned registered post covcr. No oral or documcntary evidence is adduced on behalf ol lhe accused. The case of thc petiLioner is total denial.

5. 'lhe trial Court, upon considering the arguments submittcd on both sides and upon takrng into consideratiorl thc evidencc adduced, has found the pe titioner/ accused guilty for the offcnce under Sec'tion 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to uurlergo irase J of 7 rrgorous tmprtsonment for six months and to jray it fine of Rs.3,0O0/., in clelault to sufler simple imprisonrnent for three nronths lor thc offence undcr Scction l3g of NI Act. The trial Court held that though the accuscd pur forth severrrJ contentions, hc failed to establish the same and that he also f.riied to explain the reason lor the 2"d respondent to implicate a str rnger in a false criminal czrse, his executing promissory note in fa vour of the 2"a respondenr and his refusal to receive the statutory:t()rice and also hrs failure in rcpaying the hand lo:rr-r amount evcn after issuance ol-statuton,r noticc or issuing any suitable repl1..

6. Aggricved b1, the said tindings, the pcti joner,/accused preferred (lriminal Appeal No.2O5 of 2Ol2 on ,lrr: filc of the appellate Court u,hich was also dismissed confirmi rg the findings ol- thc trial Courr.

7. Aggricvcd b1, the said lindings o[ the a )pollzlte Court, the present criminal revision casc is bcing prr ierrcd by the pt:ti tioner/ ilccused mainly c.ntcnrling thzlt both lhe: trial Court a.d the Appellate court have faircd to consider ther r]efence of the pctitioner v"'ith regard to missing clteque book and hat he has no necessity to borrow such huge am()unt from the co nplainant, the complainar,t, though contended r hat he shovgct | l,h€ present trrtnsaction in his tT returns, he lailed t0 filc th,, same in the Pagc J ol-7 Court, the legal notrce was not sent to the correct address of the petitioner, the trial Court rcjected the prayer of the petitloner for sending the disputed signatures on Exs.Pl and P2 for comparison. Stating lhus, he prayed to allow the prcsent criminal revision case.

8. On the other hand, learned Assrstant Public Prosecutor and the learned crtunsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case contending that both the trial Court and thc appellate CourL have appreciated the evidencc in a right pcrspective and gave well considered findings and hence, the said findings cannot be disturbed.

9. This Court hcard rhe arguments advanced b1' thc respectivc counsel and peruscd thc material available on record. The learned counsel representing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that thc preseltt subject matter is a covered one and this Court while adjudicating Criminal Revision Case No.2631 of 2013 basing on the dccision ol thc Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H1 contending that with respect to the dishonor of the cheques, priority should be given to compensation over thc punitive aspcct has sentenced the accused to pay compensation instead of committing him to prison and ' (:0 t0) : s(t 6oi Pa.rc 5 ol- 7 hence, thc same type of order may bc passed in the present criminal rcvision casc in the event of conhrming tl're lindings of thc trial Court :r nd appellate Court.

10. Thc petitioner is not disputing his s gnarure on the subject cheque but his contcntion is that the sam( \\as one of the cheques krst by him. However, there is nothing or rccord to know the steps taken by the petitioner in this regard. Frrrrhe r, if the 2nd respondent is rcally a stranger to him, u,hat macr: hinr Lo refuse the legal notice is not explained. The reasorrir g givr:n by the pctitioner with regard to the address mentioned in t}'re lcgal notice is not consincing since notice r.r'as returned rvith t re enclorsement "refused" but nol as "incorrect or insufficient addr.ss". Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a prcsum;tti rn ol'service of notice un<ler Section 138 of NI Act that the noticc .i'as cl:livered to the addressee in [he ordinary course of business il the notice ts sent to th,r accused's last knov:n address and it c,mplied with all the legal recuircments as mandaLed. Thc onus is on t lte accused to prove otherwise. Further, if the summons lrorn the Court is receivecl bv the accused with regard to a case rf dishonor of che(lue, LLc h:rs given a fair opportunitl Lo rclrit-r, thc cheque amount within flfteen days from such receipt of surnmons. But in the case on hand, there is no such effort m:rdc bv lre ar:cused. \ Pasc 6 ol'7

11. Law is well settled that once the execution of cheque a presumption is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates that the cheque was for the discharge of any liability. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on ihe accused to raise the probable defence. But in the case on hand, except staling that the cheque was lost, the accused failecl to rebuL the said presumption- Further, he also failed to adduce any convincing evidence in this ciebt or other regard.

12. When the facts ol ihe casc on hand are tested on the chstone of the above settlecl lavr', it is crystal clear that Lhere is legality or perversity in thc findings of thc trial Court or thc ate Court in hnding rhe accused guilty. The 2"d dent/complainant could able to establish his case by nB and cogent evitlence. Orl thc other hand, the r/accused failed to rcbut thc same Accordingly, the fails and is liable to bc dismissed . So far as the contention o[ the learned counsel g on behalf of the pctitioner rcl-ving on the decision of 'this Court passed in Criminal Revision Case No.2631 of 20 i3 contending that in the event ol confirming the findings of the trial Court and appellate Court, lcnient vie\t' mtl be taken in favour of -,,..,. l)aqe 7 ol7 the petilioner by imposing hne instead of sentencirrq him to jatl is concerned. no cloubt, it is quite obvious that $.ith re.spect to thc ol-fcnce of dishonor of cheques, it is the compcns rlolv aspect of thc remcdi'. should be given priority over the puni.\r.aspt.ct. In lhat vierv of the matter, this Court, to meet the cr-rrls of .lusticc, is inclined to direcl the petitioner to pay compensa ion to the 2nd respondent / complainant instead of sentencing th. petitioner to lm pfl son men t

14. Accordingly, this criminal revision czrst. is dismrss<:d. Hou'ever, instead of committing the petitioner rr., prison, the petitioner is scntenced to pay Rs.2,5O,O00/- (Ru )ce s trvo lakh and lifty tLLousand only) as compensation to be pir icl to Lhc 2ud re spondent I complainant within six months fror r ro(la\,. Ir-r dcfault, the pctitioner shall suffer the sentencc ar,:Lrdccl bl Ll-rc trial Oourt ztnd confirmed by the appellate Court.

15. Miscellaneous application if an1, pcndirrs shall stand closcC SD/- V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// \ ''r="r,o* oFFtcER \ \

1. Z.

4. 5 V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Corrrt)' at Hyderabad irv-speciaf Magisirate, at Hyderabad' One CC to Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar' Advocate [OPU(;] One CC to Sri Daita Purnachander Rao' Advocate [OPL C] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the state of Telangana' Hyderabad.IOUT]

6. Two CD CoPies To, M. SVS/PSt- HIGH COURT EW,J DATED:0710212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.45 of 2014 HL r i . -.(- B .a", '-.'\. _ $ir 155E)M ! ? o ! t- ,) :ij r:Al {.-r _---::::-_ o DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE q g