The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MANDA ADAM counsel for the Respondent No.1 ,t#&fj,)fi|l, Assr'PUBLlc Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI V. SURENDER RAO The Court made the following ORDER: -7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.l 333 0F 2019 ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case is liled aggrieved by the judgment datect 08. 11.2Olg in Criminal Appeal No.4O1 of 2OlZ on the file of the learned II Addl. Metropolitan Sessior:Ls Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in con{irrning the judgment dated 15.03.2017 in C.C.No.38 of 2OjS on tl-re file of the learned III Sipecia-l Magistrate, Hycierabad (for short, ,,the. trial Court').

2. Heard Mr. Marda Adam, learned counsel for ti?e petitioner and Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant public pr,rsecutor appearing for respondent No. l-State and Mr. V. Suren,:ler Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainar-rt and petitioner/ accused are acquainl.ed with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant ald borrowed a hand loan of Rs..2,5O,000/_ and executed an Agr,:ement of hanC loan assuring to repay l.he loan amount within nine months. But the accused failed to pay the money within tlre stipulated time. On repeated demar ds. the -' \' 2 accused issued a cheque bearing No'521807 dated 22'09'2014 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank' Srinagar Colony Branch, HYderabad' 4- . On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement'insufficient funds"' Therefore' the complainant issued legal notice on 22 '12 '2014 requesting the accused to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. But the legal notice was retlrrned as refused and the accused failed to pay the amount' Therefore' the accusid was alleged to have committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short' "the NI Act")';

5. The tria,l Court vide judgment 15'03'2017 in C'C'No'38 of 2015 found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay cheque amount of Rs.2,50,OOO/- as compensation ' in default' to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months' Aggrieved thereby' the petitioner preferred an appeal'

6. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal conhrming the judgment passed by the trial Court' Assailing the same, the present Revision Y. 7 ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his consistent efforts to obtain instructions from the petitir:ner have gone in vain ar;d seeks to decide the matter on merits. Learned hssistant public prosecutor opposed the s;ame and contended that respondent No.2 underwent severe men[al agony by roaming arorlnd the tria,l Court as well as the appellate Court. l,earned Assistant public prosecutor submitted th.at the :rppellate Court upon appreciating the oral ard documentary ,3r.idsnss rightly passed tlre impugned judgment and sought to disrniss the Revision. 8 On behalf of the complainant, the trial Court examined the PWs. I and 2 ,and marked Exs.pl to p9. On behalf of the accused, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Dl and tr2 were marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record rt is seen that on I4.OZ .2OI2, the complainant contendt:d that the accused issr_red trx p2_post dated cheque for drscharging the loan amount. The accused had not disputed the same. But the accused claimed that he has repaid the loan amount due try him to the complainal.!. In support of the contention of the accused, he himseif is exam:ined as DW3. Apart rrom the orar evide,ce of the accused as DW.3, he also examined one Devadi Harinath and 4 J. Shantha Rao as DWs I and2, who hled their evidence a-fhdavit for examination in-chief, wherein, they stated that the accused had repaid the amount in their presence' There is no reference of such repayments as alleged by the accused and DWs 1 and 2 in Ex.PS legal notice got issued by the accused and also there is no documentary evidence in support of repayment of hand loan as alleged. The accused did not put-forth any acceptable evidence before the Court that he discharged the due amount to the complainant. g. In the instance case, the accused did not put forth any acceptable evidence before the Court stating tha$he had repaid the amount under Ex P2 cheque to the compiainalt' Therefore' the ora,l evidence of PWI is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the documentar5i evidence and hence' the case of the complainant cannot be discredited' The oral evidence of PWl and Ex P2 cheque itself is sufficient to prove that the accused issued Ex P2 cheque worth of Rs.2,5O,000/ for discharging the legally enforceable debt, but there is an additional evidence of Ex P1 in support of the testimony of PWl' It is not the case of the accused that on 24.og.2ooa and, |1.I2.2o14, he is having suffrcient funds inhisaccountforhonouringExP2chequeworthof l Rs.2,5O,0OO/-. The accused did not file his bank staterr:.ent at the relevant periocl to show that there are sufhcient fun,ls in the account of the accused for honouring the cheque. Ther-efore, the act of the accused resulted in dishonour of the cheque. Hence, it was conciuded that the accused issued trx p2 cheque in favour of the complainarrt towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank c:oncerned due to insuffici,:r-rcy of funds in the account of the accused which clearly falls in the ambit of Section 138 of the NI Act. Ttrough the defence of the accused is that the legal notice (Ex e5'1 was dispatched rvith incorrect address, the returned posral cover (Ex.P7) shor,r,s endorsement ,not claimed, alldl fla,t No.54 mentioned on the cover was rounded with flat No. 53 . Even the accused failed t,r show that he has no knowledge about the notice under Ex.P5 or that the endorsement is not correct. T herefore, the trial Court found that the complainant had successfully brought home tlee guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and rendered the judgmernt dated

15.03.2077 in C.C.No.38 of 2O15.

10. Upon re-appreciating the evidence available on record. the appellate Cedft lound that the accused failed to prodrrce any i 6 documentar5r evidence in support of his oral evidence rega-rding repayment of loan amount' In case of failure on the part of the accused to establish such a defence, the case of the complainant is to be accepted. Therefore, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court'

11. 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 BabalaF' R' Vijayan Vs' Baby2, S.R. Suail & Company Vs' D' Srinivasawiradan3' MainuddinAbdutsattarShaikhVs'VijayD'salvia'somnath SarkarVs.UtpalBasuMallicksandGimpex(Pi,-LtdVs.Manoj Goel, upon considering the fact that the petitioner underwent mental agony roaming around the trial Court as u'ell as the appeilate Court, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him'

12. The petitioner is directed to deposit compensation of Rs.2,75,0O0/-, which includes interest from the date of the judgment in C.C.No.38 of 2015 till the date of the deposit in the ' 20lo (5) scc 663 ) (2o12) 1 SCC 260 I6 SCC 32 ' 1zo tay ' (zo ts) 9 SCC i 20 r3 ( rc$(c 465 '21 1 above sa:d calendar case, before the trial Court, within a period of two (2) months from today. On such deposit, respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw the same on filing al appropriate application before the trial Court.

13. If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer the judgment dated 0g.11.2019 in Crimjna_l Appeat No.401 of 2O1T on the f,rle of the learned II Addl. Nletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

14. Except the above modification, in aI other aspects, the Criminal Revis;ion Case stands dismissed. Miscellaleous petitions, pending if any, shalt starLd closed //TRUE COPYII Sdi- T. KRISHNA KUMAR ISTRAR i FFICER The ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judqe, Hvderabad. The lll Speciat Magistrite, Hvo..iGa.'- The Vlll Addl. Chief Metrop_olitan Magistrate,s Court, Hyderabad. One CC to SRt. MANDA AOem, nOv6cate fOpUCi Two CCs to Sri E. Ganesh, Asst..public F.6i""rt6r, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri V. SURENDER RAO, nAvocate (OpUC) Two CD Copiers To 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 7 Kul/gh t I HIGH COURT DATED:21tO112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1333 of 2019 /.( O ,( I; iA., (5 iY. rit' r ( rrrp,n run z t {g*.. DISMISSING TIllr C RL.R.CI /o 4.< 2Z/zr