P. Sai Babu v. The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and two others

Counsel for the appellant : Sri T. D. Dayal, GPA holder. Counsel for respondent No.1 : None Counsel for respondent No.2 : Government Pleader for Home Counsel for respondent No.3 : None 11th July, 2007 Per G.S. Singhvi, C.J. This appeal is directed against order dated 22-6-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (SR) No.35288 of 2006, whereby he declined to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing judgment dated 12-10-2001 rendered by V Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad in C.C.No.1170 of 1998. A perusal of the record shows that on a complaint filed by K. Madhusudhan Rao, case was registered against the appellant for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, vide his judgment dated

12.10.2001, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also directed him to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge also ordered that if the accused fails to pay the compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Criminal Appeal No.380 of 2001 preferred by the appellant was dismissed by I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 24.1.2002 and Criminal Revision Case No.87 of 2002 was dismissed by the High Court on 20-6-2005. After almost ten months of dismissal of the criminal revision, the appellant filed writ petition for quashing the judgment of the trial Court by contending that the complaint filed against him was ex facie false and the finding of guilty recorded by the trial Court is perverse. The learned Single Judge considered the question whether a writ would lie against the judicial order and answered the same in negative by relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v.

State of Maharashtra and another [1] , Smt. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat , Ajit Kumar Barat v. [2] Secretary, Indian Tea Association and others [3] , Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and another [4] . Sri T.D. Dayal, GPA holder of the appellant argued that the judgment of the trial court is non est because no legally admissible evidence was available for convicting the appellant and dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.380 of 2001 and Criminal Revision Case No.87 of 2002 by the lower appellate court and this Court are inconsequential. He relied on Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and argued that without examining either of the attesting witnesses, the lower court could not have treated the document as duly proved and convicted and sentenced the appellant. In our opinion, there is no merit in the submission of Sri T.D. Dayal and we do not see any reason to differ with the learned Single Judge that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot scrutinise the legality or correctness of the judgment rendered by a competent court more so when such judgment has been upheld by the appellate and the revisional courts.