The High Court · 2025

: Sri 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 CRTMINAL REVISION CASE No.2633 OF 2013 ORDER: The present criminal revision case is filed bv the pct itioner/ accused under Sections 392 and 401 of Cr.p.C., aggricved bv the judgment dated 30.12.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2012 on the file of the learned V Additional MctropoliLan Se ssions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad wherein and u-here under the conviction and sentenced imposed against the pcfitioner vide judgment dated 29.O2.2O12 in CC No.245 of 20 I I on rhe file of the learned XIV Special Metropolitan N4.1gis tratc, ilr-dcrabad was confirmed.

2. Heard S.Ashok At-rand Kumar, learned counsel lor the petitioner. Sri tr.Ganesh, learned assistant public prosecutor for thL- rcsponcient No. 1 and Sri Daita purnachander Rao. rearned counsel for the responcient No.2.

3. CC No.245 of 2011 on the lile of the tnal Court is a case registered b1, the 2"d respondent herein alleging that the petitioner, t:rkii-rg advantage of acquaintance u,ith the 2.,1 respondent, on 09.01.2006 obtained an amount of Rs.2,OO,00O/- as a kran b1. cxer;uting a promissory note and subsequently, upon pcrsistent demands made by the complainant, the petitioner issuecl chcque bgqnng No.78 1g24 d,ated 27 .05.2006 for an Page 2 ol7 amoun[ of Rs.2,O0,OOO/- drawn on Vysya Bank, Bidar Branch towards discharge of the said loan amount and feiled to honour the same due to insufficiency of funds in his account' Further' vide return memo dated 2l.O6.2OO6the said cheque was returned for the reason "funds insufhcient". The legal noticc dated 2O.O7.2CrCr6 issued to the petitioner lr'as returned as not claimed' Accordingly, the compiainant hled the present calendar case under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that in-spite his compliance of statutory requirements as required under Section 138 of NI Act' the petitioner failed either to repay the amount covered under the subject cheque or gave any reply and hence, he is liable to be punished under the said statute.

4. During trial, the complainant got examincd himself as PW 1 and relied upon Exs.Pl to P7, which are the promissory notc, dishonoured cheque, return memo, legal notice' postal receipt, statutory notice and returned regisLered post cover' No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. The case of the petitioner is total denial'

5. The trial Court, upon considering the arguments submitted on both sides and upon taking into consideration thc evidence adduced, has found the petitioner/ accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo Page 3 oi7 rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a Iine of Rs.3,0OO/-, in defauit to suffer simpie imprisonment for three mon ths for the offence under Section 1 38 of NI Act. The trial Court held that though the accused put-forth several contentions, he failecl to establish the same and that he also failed to explain the reason fbr the 2"d respondent to implicate a stranger in a false criminal case, his executing a promissory note in favour of the 2"d respondcnt and his refusal to receive the statutory notice and also his failure iir repaf ir-rg the hand loan amount even after issuance ol sia[utor1,' norice or issuing any suitable reply 6- Aggrievecl b-y the said findings, the petitioner/ accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.2O4 of 2012 on the hle of the appellate Court ['hich u.as also dismissed conhrming the Iindings of the trial Coi-rrt

7. Aggrieved b1- the said findings of the appellate Court, the prcsent criminal revision case is being preferred by the peti tioner/ a ct:u sed mainly contending that both the trial Court and thc Appcllatc Court have failed to consider the defence of the petitioner u,ith regard to missing cheque book and that he has no necessitl, to borrou,such huge amount from the complainant, the complainanr. rhough contcnded that he showed the prescnt * -.Jransaction in his .lT rcturns, he failed to hle the same in the I i t: I 'l h Page 4 ol7 Court, the legal notice was not sent to the correct address of the petitioner, the trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner for sending the disputed signatures on Exs.P1 and P2 for comparison. Stating thus, he prayed [o allou' [he present criminal revision case.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant F.rblic Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No-2 have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case contending that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have appreciatcd the evidence in a right .perspective and gave well considereC Iindings and hence, the said hndings cannot be disturbeC.

9. This Court heard the arguments advanced by the respeclive counsel and perused the material available on record The learned counsel representing on behalfof the petilioner would submit that the present subject matter is a covered one and this Court while adjudicating Criminal Revision Case No.2631 of 2013 basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal Hl contending that with respect to the dishonor of the cheques, priority should be given to compensation over the punitive aspect has sentenced the accused to pay compensation instead of committing him to prison and ' (zo ro) 5 scc 661 hence, the same typc of order may be passed in the present criminal revision case in the event of confirming the findings of the trial Court and appcllate Court.

10. The petitioner is not disputing his signature on the subject cheque but his contention is that the same was one of the cheques lost by him. Ho*,ever, there is nothing on record to know the steps taken b-v the petitioner in this regard. Further, if the 2"d respondent is re:rllv a stranger to him, what made him to refuse the legal notice is not cxplained. The reasoning given by the petitioner with regard to the address mentioned in the legal notice is no[ convincing since notice rvas returned with the endorsement "refused" but nol as "iucorrect or insulltcient address". Under the Negotiable Instruments Acl, there is a presumption of service of notice under Scction 138 ol NI Act that the notice was delivered to the addressee in the ordinary course of business il'the notice is sent to the accusecl's lasl knou.n address and it complied with al1 the legal reqliirements as mandatcd. The onus is on the accused to prove otherwrse. Furthcr, if the summons from the Court is received b-v the accused wiLh regard to a case of dishonor of cheque, he has given a fair opportunity to repay the cheque amount within llfteen da,v-s from such receipt of summons. But in the case on hancl, thcrc is no such effort made by the accused.

11. Law is well settled that once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that thc cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. But in lhe 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 tested on the touchsLone of the above settled [aw, it is crystal clear that there is no illegality or perversiQr in the findings of the trial Court or the appellatc Court in hnding the accused guilty- The 2",) re spondcnt/complainant could able to establish his case bv convincing and cogent evidence. On the other hand, ,n. pe titioncr/ accu sed failed to rebut the same. Accordingly, the revision [ails and is liable to be dismissed.

13. So far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing on bchalf of the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court passed in Criminal Revision Case No.263 I of 2013 contending that in the event of confirming the findings of the trial Court and appcllate Court, lenient view may be taken in favour of I I'age 7 oi7 the petitioner by imposing fine instead of sentencing him to jail is concerned, no doubt, it is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of dishonor of cheques, it is Lhe compensatory aspect of the remedy, should be gir.en prioriry" over the punitive aspect. In that view of the matter, this Court, to meet the ends of justice, is inclined to direct the petilioner Lo pay compensation to the 2"d respondent/complainant inslead of sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment. L4. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. However, instead of committing the petitioner t-o prison, the petitioner is sen[enced to paY Rs.2,50,O00/ (Rupces two iakh and fifty thousand only) as compensation to be paid to the 2"d respondent/ complainant rvithir-r sk months from today. In default, the pelitioner shall sulfer the sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by lhe appeliate Court.

15. Miscellaneous application if any pending shall stand closed SO/. K. SREE R.AMA MURTHY PUTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// \ ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional M.S.J,(tvlahila court ) at Hyderab 2. xlv Special Magistrate at HYderabad 3. One CC to Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar . Advocate IOPUCI 4- One CC to Sri Daita Purnachander Rao' Advocate [OPUC] i r*o ccs to the public prosecutor. High court for the state of Telangana, HYderabad lOUTl

6. Two CD CoPies SVS/PSL \q. HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.2633 of 2013 ..: , . -.- +. . .. .rlI6-..:-q: r-\'i'\ .-'^ \ ..\ 7\ ..i\ j. [2 SEPM i]),,i , "'i' ,+ . 7,' \1 .. DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE a, caRqd Ya&- \,\\