The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Resp'ondent No.2: Mr. PADALA PRAVEEN KUMAR The Court made the lollowing: ORDER n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.828 OF 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is hled by the petitioner-accused against the judgment dated 21.11.2O22 passed' in Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 2O18 by the learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, "the appellate Court"), confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Special Magistrate at Hasthinapuram, R.R District in C.C.No. 145 of 2016 dated 18.01.2018, wherein the revision petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishabie under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act") and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay hne of Rs.65,O0,00O/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Only) as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Mr.G.Gurumurthy, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Padala Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.tr. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the accused is running frlm distribution. Respondent No.2 - complainant known the accused through his sister Smt.Subhadra Devi. The accused requqsted it:it ***a.. .:i.raair 2 complainant fb: hnancial assistance of Rs.30 laksh tr meet his business needs e.nd promised to return the same with intr;rest @ 24o/o per annum. By :rusting the accused, complainant gave ar.1 amount of Rs.30,62,OOO/- ir installments during January, 2015 to l.{arch, 2015 through online transfers and self drawn -cheques and cash. Accordingly, aftt:r' receipt of the amount from complainant, the accused has executed ,l promissory note dated 28.03.2015 for ar amount of Rs.30,62,OO0/-, Again the compiainant paid an amount of Rs.99,07,000/ - t,) the accused. When the complainant de rranded the accused to repa'/ the amount, he stated that he had partir:ipated in a gold auction cc nducted by Air Cargo, a Governmer t of India undertaking a:nrl the accused had successful in a bid fr rr 156 gold coins and one Vaddanam and shown number of counter foils of bank payments at Slll. The accused misrepresented the complarnant and it is essential lb r him to pay amounts to various ( iovernment Departments eLn<l banks within a specified period, in order to get release the golci coins allotted to the accused in the auction and accused requested the complainant for want of additional amount of Rs. 1 Crore. O:r l>elieving the letters and bank counter foils shown by the accused, i h r complainant had advanced additional amount of Rs.99,07,0O0/- rrL installments from April, 2015 to July, 2Cr15 through online transfer, s;elf drawn cheques and through direct cash. The accused receivt,rl total amount of Rs. 1,29,69,000/ - from the complainant. ,{r:r;ordingly, the accused executed promisscry notes to ., the complainant. When the complainant insisted the accused to repay the amount, the accused issued four postdated cheques bearing Nos.O34607 for Rs.5O,00,000/-, 034608 for Rs.50,00,000/-, 034609 for Rs.3O,O0,OO0/- and 034610 for Rs.30,75,000/-, dated 12.05.2016 in favour of the complainant drawn on ICICI- Bank, Barkatpura branch. The complainant got doubt on the character of the accused with regard to counter foils and letters from various departments, he approached the SBI, Local Head Office, Hyderabad, there, they conhrmed that no payments were made through the bank and the account numbers indicated in the counter foils shown by the accused to the complainant are not genuine and they are fake and forged. Thereafter, the complainant approached the RBI and Law department, Government of Telangana to verify the genuineness of the letters of correspondence from these departments, they confirmed that they did not issue any such correspondence ald no such letters were L dispatched from their office. On that the complainant approached the Commissioner of Poiice and lodged a complaint against the accused and they referred the matter to Central Crime Station, Hyderabad and the CCS, Hyderabad registered Crime No.215 of 2O15 for the offences under Section s 406,42f,,468 and 471 of IPC against the accused. On

16.05.2016, when the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.O346O7 for an amount of Rs.5O,OO,OO0/- through ICICI Bank, the same was returned with an endorsement 'account blocked (situation covered irt 21r-251' vide cheque return memo dated 17.052016' .\./, 4 Thereupon, th c complainant got issued statutory legal rrotice to the accused throu gh RPAD postal receipt, the accused recei,.,ed the said notice, but hras not gave any reply, nor paid any amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has hled z complaint under Section 2rlo of the Cr.P.C. against the accused for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

4. The trial (lourt, vide judgment dated 18.01.2018 in C.C.No.i45 of 2076, found 'Ie petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section ilS of NI Act and sentenced him to und ergo simple imprisonrnent fc,r one year and to pay fine of Rs.65,OO,O0rl/- (Rupees Sixty Fifty Lal<hs Only), which shal1 be paid to the compla nant under Section 357(3) ol' Cr.P.C. as compensation.

5. Being aggr-ieved by this judgment of conviction dated 18.O1.201g in C.C.No.l45 'cl 2076, the accused has preferred an appezrl before the learned \rlII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, I?z:nga Reddy District at L.El.Nagar in Crl.A.No. 157 of 2O 18, which came to be dismissed on 2l .1.2022, confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner has preferrecl tl-ris revision petition.

6. It is urgecL by the learned counsel for the petitionr:r that the impugned Judgm:nts and sentence passed by the learnecl trial Court are bad in larv as both the trial and appellate Courts belo,,v have not 1'\ 5 considered the evidence and documents produced by the petitioner- accused and not applied its judicial mind and only relying upon the evidence and documents produced by the complainant, the learned Magistrate arrived at a wrong conclusion and convicted the accused. It is further urged that the impugned Judgment5 - are only based on assumptions and presumption, but not based on real facts and material on record. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant faiied to discharge initial burden of debt cast upon him under law. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revision.

7. Per contra, the iearned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently justihed the concurrent findings of conviction and submits that the petitioner has not led any evidence to rebut the presumption which is mandatory. The transaction even though denied by the petitioner, no clinching evidence was produced to rebut the presumption. The Courts below after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly recorded the conviction and there is no inhrmity or illegality in the findings of the Courts below, therefore, interference with the said findings may not be warranted. Having submitted thus, learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the revision petition.

8. This Court being a Revisional Court, having regard to the scope and limits envisaged to appreciate the facts and law, it is necessary to 1 -,1 I I I I 6 6 have a cursonr iook upon the evidence and also thc law, to ascertain as to whether any itlegality or perversity or error committed t,y the Courts below in recordrrrg the conviction.

9. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections li97 and 401 of the Criminal Proiedure Ccde, the High Court does nct in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual flrndings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-antalyze and re- interpret the evrrlence on record.

10. On behzLlr'of the complainant, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked llxs.Pl to P23. On behalf of the defence, tfre petitioner- accused himself examined as DW1 and got marked trxs.D 1 to D8. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary eviderLce, the trial Court observe,l that the accused did not rebut the presun.Lption under Section 139 of N, Act, with any convincing material or evid,)nce and the complainant este blished its case that the accused issuecl F.x.P1 cheque in favour of the' complainalt towards discharge of legally enforceable liabiiity, thererore, the trial Court held that the accused r,ras guilty of the offence p'"rrishable under Section 138 of NI Acl. Fulther, in the appeal, the appr: late Court conhrmed the judgment passecl by the trial Court and disrnls;sed the appeal.

11. The plezi cf the accused is that he gave blank sigrred cheques bearing No.O3.+rtr)7, 034608, 034609 and 034610 to S.Surhadra Devi 7 for the purpose of the film sub-distribution and the said S. Subhadra Devi also issued a cheque No.448507 for an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- in his favour as security to the business transactions and subsequent$ some disputes arose between them and he asked to return his signed blank cheques. Then the said S.'Subhadra Devi bore grudge on him and got frled the complaint through the complainant.

12. PWs.2 and 3 who are attestors of the execution of the promissory notes, categorically stated in their cross examination that they put signatures as attestors after going through the bank statements and satisfying about the transferring the amount to the account of the accused. They put their signatures on the promissory notes Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 and also on the undertaking under trx.P6.

13. The accused who examined as DW. t has admitted in his cross examination that the amounts were transferred from the account of the complainant to his accounts and the documents under Ex.P1O to P13 discloses the amount. The trial Court further observed that the complainant did not hle IT returns showing that the said amount of Rs. 1,29,69,000/- was paid to the accused, but when the accused himself admitted that the amounts were transferred from the account of the complainant to his accounts, as such, not hling of IT returns has no consequence in this case. \ o

14. The reasorLs given by both the Courts below are bast d on record, reasonable a -rrl probable and have concurrently he d that the petitioner-accusr:d is guilty of the offence and that he lras faiied to rebut the prcsu mption, hence, this Court is not in a position to interfere with those concurrent hndings and facts re garding the conviction of tlu: petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. ln the result, the concurrent findings r.rade by the Courts belov, r'egarding the conviction of the petitioner is l,:gally proper and corrcct:rrd are not amenable lbr any revisional interft'rence at the hands of this (lo rrt.

15. This Cor-rrl after careful consideration of the records avaiiable, is of the considerec vierv that respondent No.2 has proved th,: guilt of the petitioner lor :,h r' offence punishable under Section 1 38 o : NI Act and the petitioner fliled to rebut the same by adducing cogent and convincing evi,lt:nce in order to rebut the presumption.

16. As far as Jre sentence is concerned. it is seen that the trial court had sentence<l the revision petitroner - accused to unclergo simple imprisonment {cr one year with a direction to f)ay fine of Rs.65,00,00O/- (Rupees Sixty Fifty Lakhs Only). The apJ ellate Court has concurred ttLe said sentence and compensation amourrt. The Apex Court, in Damdctar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalall and M/s. Gimpex ' zoto 1s.y scc oc: , I 9 (Pl Ltd. Vd. Manoj Goeal2, has held that the offence of dishonour of cheque envisaged in Section 138 of NI Act is essentially a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones by the legislative interventions made through the amendments of the NI Act and that imposition of fine payable as compensation to tlre complainant would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Unless there are exceptional and compelling circumstances warranting the imposition of substantive sentence, sentence of appropriate hne amount would sufhce. This Court is definitely of the view that the substantive sentence of one year simple imprisonment imposed by the courts below is rather excessive and disproportionate. Since, the complaint pertains to the year 2016 and the trial Court convicted the petitioner in the year 2O18 and the appellate court confirmed the judgment of the conviction and sentence in the year 2022 and the petitioner is aged about 54 years would have undergone mental agony by roaming around the courts till today, therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the Iine component'

17. trxcept the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed, in all other aspects. However, the petitioner is directed to pay further fine of Rs.2,0O,000/- to the fine amount imposed by the trial Court and the revision petitioner is directed to pay altogether Rs.67,O0,OOO/- towards compensation (inclusive of the ) ' (2022) rt scc7os I I l l i0 a amounts if any deposited before the trial court) to the oomplainant under Section 35 7(3) of Cr.P.C within a period of one year from today. If the petitionr:r' lails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple irrprisonment for a period of six (O6) month.s. The bail bonds of the octilioner sha1l stand cancelled. Miscellane c,us Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SDI- B.SATYAVATHI JOIN'T REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// \ 'Secrtolt oFFlcER To, L.B. Nagar '1 . The Vlli Additicnal Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga RedCy District at 2 The ll Special [,4agistrate at Hastinapuram' Ranga Reddy District a.f*oCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateoflelanganaat HyderabadiCrLl'-l 4 One CC to Sri F' Animi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri f)adala Praveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CD CoPies Plp/PSL $.- 1 I I I i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:24101t2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.E2,3 ot 2022 DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C. \# 1 $J\ e >r ^1 ,6 ,4L*'' l'? !) (J ^6( 2e npn ruzt z 5,,

1.,t. S r)n tat I €.$ a