Order High Court · 2025

Enclave, Srihari Nagar,Moosapet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ... RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: SRl. E. GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: MS. MOTHAMARRY SREE VIDHYA (AMTCUS CURTAE) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1560 OF 2O1O ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed .by the petitioner aggrieved by thc judgment dated 03.09.20 10 in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge For Economic Offences-cum..VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad (for short, ,,the appellate Court") confirming the judgment dated 03.05.20 I0 in C.C.No.344 of 2OO9 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court,,).

2. Heard Mr.Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Ms.Mothamarry Sree Vidhya, learnecl 'Amirus Curiae' appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant was acquainted to petitioner/ accused through PW2 / M. Subrarnanyeswar Rao. On such acquaintance, the accused requested thq complainant to arrange a sum of Rs.4,00.00( and Rs.B,OO,O00/- respectively by rvalr of u,riting -., 2 letters on 27.07.2008 and 12.08.2008 to meet his business necessities. On such request, the complainant arranged the funds to the accused, who acknowledged the same by way of letters dated 29.07.2008 and 14.08.20O8; that accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.926402 and 926405 for Rs.4,OO,O00/ and Rs.8,OO,00O/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited, Visakapatnam Branch as a gesture of security apart from executing promissory notes dated 29.07.2OO8 for Rs.4,0O,O00/- and 14.08.2008 for Rs.8,OO,0O0/-. On presentation, the said cheques were returned due to "insufficient funds". Then, the complainant issued lega-l notice dated 30.O1.2OO9 informing the accused about the dishonour of the said cheques and to pay the amount due. But the accused failed to pay the money due and got the notice returned with malafide intention. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Acl'

4. The trial Court vide dated 03.05.2O10 in C'C'No'344 of 2OO9 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to \ \ I \ \ ;F=7 undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

5. The appcllate Court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the sarre, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trxs.pS and P6 are givcn for the purpose of security and as such the same cannot bc enforced for initiating complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. He further submits that the statutory legal notice, sent to the acldress at Visakhapatnam is returned with an endorsement "lcft" and that respondent No.2 had intentionally sent the legal notice to the wrong address of petitioner. He further states that the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to appreclate the evidence on record in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seel<s to allow this Revision.

7. Learned Assistant Public prosecutor contended that both the Courts, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this court is not rn arranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision 4 ..:51lt

8. On behalf of the complainant, the trial Court examined PWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs.Pi to Pl5. On behalf of the defense none were examined and Exs.Dl and D2 were marked. Upon careful consideration of the material available on record, the trial Court observed that there were contradictions in Exs.Pl to P4 letters and Exs.Pl4 and Pl5 with regard to the mode of passing of consideration but a reading of the entire contents of the said exhibits show that the consideration amount was passed to the accused under letters and promissory notes, either it may be by rvay of pay order or in way of cash. Out of minor contradiction in the contents of the said documents, the entire money transaction is not changed. Therefore, the trial Court observed that there is legall,v enforceable debt due by the accused and payable to the complainant and that to discharge the said debt, the accused had issued the cheques. Further as per Exs.P1 to P4 letters and Exs.Pl4 and P15, the address of the accused is shown as Visakhapatnam and Ex Pl1/legal notice was sent to the address at Visakhapatnam. Therefore, it is quite clear that the complainant had sent the legal notice to the appropriate address of the accused. In view of the above, the trial Court held that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and rendered its judgment \ \^. 5 9 In the appeal, the appellate Court, upon re-appreciating .the evidence available on record also observed that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 coupled u,ith the documentar5r evidence placed by PW1 clearly shows that PWl had complied with ail the requisite conditions undcr Section l38 of Nl Act. PWs.l ar-rd 2 stated that both the cheques and pronotes were executed b-y the accused. But the accused lailed to enter into vgitness box to deny the same on oath. From the evidence of PWs. I and 2 and the docurnentary evidence placed before it, the appellate Court had obsenred that there is existence of a legally enforceable debt and that the subject cheques, given by the accused, in favour of complainant were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Hence, relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohanl, the appcllate Court rendered the impugned judgment.

10. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, relying on the decisions passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal2, R. Vijayan Vs. t \ Babys, S.R. Sunil & Company Vs. D. Srinivasavaradan4, I t Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvis, Somnath ' AIR 20to sc 1898 '2oto 1s.y scc r,6l I SC]C 260 '(zorz) a l6 scc 32 1zo t+; t 9 SCC 622 1zo r s.1 6 !l Sarkar Vs. Utpal Basu Mallick6 and Gimpex (Pl Ltd Vs. Manoj Goel, upon considering the fact that the petitione r underwent mental agony by roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient vier.r, and reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 1 1. The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the credit of C.C.No.344 of 2OO9 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, within a period of six (6) months from today. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

12. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stalds dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if aly, shall stald closed e zon(rc)Ecc 465 //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judge for Economic Offences cum Vlll Additional Metropolitan I I I I l 1 I Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent, Chenchelguda Prison, Hyderabad. 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (our)

5. One CC to SRl. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to lr/S. MOTHAMARRY SREE VIDHYA, Amicus Curiae [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies. PM/gh tastiI:a r' 'r. .iXXW!Y1.'1W-*:=E HIGH COURT DAf ED:1110212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1560 of 2010 gB THE S i4 t ? 1t JUL 206 L () -: {,i J. + ' t 'l ^r:a- DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. ,/( b