The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.826 OF 2o22 ORDER: This CrirrLinal Revision Case is filed by the petition,:r-accused against the judgnrent dated 21.11.2022 passed in Crimi:ral Appeal No.159 of 2018 br the learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Re<ldy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, "tht: appellate Court"), confirminl; the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Spxrcial Magistrate at Hasthinapuram, R. R District in C.C.No.146 of 2016 dated 18.O1.2018, wherein the revisiorr petitioner has been convir:ted for the offence punishable under Sect:on 138 of Negotiable Instrunrents Act, 188 1 (for short "NI Act") and se ntenced to undergo simpl,3 imprisonment for one year and pa g fine of Rs.65,00,000/- (R rpees Sixty Five Lakhs Only) as compensation to the complainant un,lel Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard I\,4r'. G. Gurumurthy, learned counsel re presenting Mr.P.Animi Recldl., learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Padala Praveen Kumar, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2 ,rnd Mr.E. Ganesh, learne<l l\ssistant Public Prosecutor appearing or: behalf of respondent No. 1 -State.

3. The brief far ts of the case are that the accused is running fiim distribution. Flespondent No.2 - complainant known th e accused through his sisle r Smt.Subhadra Devi. The accused requested ,r 2 complainant for financial assistance of Rs.3O laksh to meet his business needs and promised to return the same with interest @ 24% per annum. By trusting the accused, complainant gave an amount of Rs.3O,62,000/- in installments during January, 2O15 to March, 2O15 though online transfers and self drawn cheques and cash. Accordingly, after receipt of the amount from complainant, the accused has executed a promissory note dated 2a.O3.2OLS for an amount of Rs.30,62,000/-. Again the complainant paid an amount of Rs.99,07,00O/- to the accused. When the complainant demanded the accused to repay the amount, he stated that he had participated in a gold auction conducted by Air Cargo, a Government of India undertaking and the accused had successful in a bid for 156 gold coins and one Vaddanam and shown number of counter foils of bank payments at SBI. The accused misrepresented the complainant and it is essential for him to pay amounts to various Government Departments and banks within a specihed period, in order to get release the gold coins allotted to the accused in the auction and accused requested the complainant for want of additional amount of Rs.l Crore. On believing the letters and bank counter foils shown by the accused, the complainant had advanced additional amount of Rs.99,07,O00/- in instaliments from April, 2015 to July, 2015 through online transfer, self drawn cheques and through direct cash. The accused received total amount of Rs.1,29,69,O00/ - from the complainant. Accordingly, the accused executed promissory notes to 1l 3 the complainant. When the complainant insisted the accused to repay the amount, the accused issued four postdated cheques bearing Nos.O34607 for Fis.50,00,000/-, 034608 for Rs.50,00,OO0/ , 034609 for Rs.30,00,O00/- and 034610 for Rs.30,75,000/-, dated 12.O5.2016 in favour of the complainant drawn on ICICI. Bank, 3arkatpura branch. The c,crrplainant got doubt on the character of the accused with regard to crr-lnter foils and letters from various depar"tments, he approached the SBI, Local Head Office, Hyderabad, there, they confirmed that n r payments were made through the bank and the account numbers indicated in the counter foils shou'n by the accused to the complainant are not genuine and they are fake rrnd forged. Thereafter, the co rplainant approached the RBI and Lau, clepartment, Government of 1\:langana to veriSr the genuineness of th,: letters of correspondence frcm these departments, they confirmed that they did not issue any l;uch correspondence ald no such letters were dispatched frorn t reir ofhce. On that the complainant approached the Commissioner of Police and lodged a complaint against tlre accused ald they referrr:d the matter to Central Crime Station, Hyd,.:rabad and the CCS, Hyderabad registered Crime No.2 15 of 2015 for the offences under Sect ion s 4r)6,42O,468 and 471 of IPC against the accused. On

23.05.2016, rvherr the complainant presented the chegre bearing No.O34608 for zrn amount of Rs.50,0O,O00/- through ICICI Bank, the szune was returned with an endorsement 'account blocked (situation covered in 21-21)' vide cheque return memo dated 24.05.2016. / I 4 ,,'] Thereupon, the complainant got issued statutory legal notice to the accused through RPAD postal receipt, the accused received the said notice, but has not given any reply, nor paid any amount to the cornplainant. Hence, the complainant has hled a complaint under Section 2oo of the cr.P.c. against the accused for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 ofthe NI Act'

4. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 18.O1'2O18 in C'C'No'146 of 2076, found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs'65,00,0O0/- (Rupees Sixty Fifty Lakhs Only), which shall be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. as compensation.

5. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction dated 18'01'2O18 in C.C.No. 146 of 2016, the accused has preferred an appeal before the learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crl.A'No.lS9 of 2O18, which came to be dismissedon2|.|1.2022'confirmingthejudgmentpassedbythetrial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner has pref6rred this revision petition. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 6. impugned Judgments and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law as both the trial and appellate Courts below have not /,: 5 considered the eridence and documents produced by the petitioner- accused and not applied its judicial mind and only relyinr3 upon the evidence and d.ocuments produced by the complainant, the learned Magistrate arrived at a wrong conclusion and convicted the ,rrccused. It is further urged that the impugned Judgments . are onil' based on assumptions an,l presumption, but not based on real facts and material on rec,)r(I. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant failed to discharge initial burden of debt cast uporL him under law. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revision.

7. Per contr:1, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 rzehemently justihed the con,:urrent findings of conviction and submit,s that the petitioner has not led any evidence to rebut the presumptir:n which is mandatory. The r.r'ansaction even though denied by the pet-itioner, no clinching evide:nr;,: was produced to rebut the presump Lion. The Courts below alte;' considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly rerr:orded the conviction and there is no inhrmit5r or illegality in the Jiedings of the Courts below, therefore, interference with the said find ngs may not be warranted. Having subrrritted thus, learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays to dismiss t]re revision petition.

8. This Court t,eing a Revisional Court, having regard tc, the scope and limits envisag,:fl to appreciate the facts and law, it is nccessary to r t/ j I I {t 6 have a cursory look upon the evidence and also the law, to ascertain as to whether any illegality or perversity or error committed by the Courts ^ below in recording the conviction. g. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 4Ol of the Criminal Proiedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual frndings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyze and re- interpret the evidence on record.

10. On behalf of the complainant, the tria'l Court examined PWs l to 6 and marked Exs.Pl to P23. On behalf of the defence, the petitioner- accused himself examined as DWl and got marked Exs'D 1 to D8' Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that the accused did not rebut the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, with any convincing material or evidence and the complainant established its case that the accused issued Ex'Pl cheque in favour of the cornplainant towards discharge of legally enforceable liability, therefore, the trial Court held that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Ait Further, in the appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court and dismissed the aPPeal.

11. The plea of the accused is that he gave blank signed cheques bearing No.0346O7, 034608, 034609 and 034610 to S Subhadra Devi l', 7 for the purpose ol the film sub-distribution and the said S Subhadra Devi also issuecl a cheque No.448507 for an amount of Rs.21,0O,OO0/- in his favour i1s securit5r to the business transa( tions and subsequently sonre disputes arose between them and hr: asked to return his signed rlank cheques. Then the said S.'Subhadrrr Devi bore grudge on him zLr.<l got filed the complaint through the complainant.

12. PWs.2 anri :i who are attestors of the execution of the promissory notes, categorically stated in their cross examination tha t 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 pr,t their signatures on the promissory notes Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 and also orL the undertaking under Ex.P6.

13. The accusec who examined as DW.t has admitted irr his cross examination that the amounts were transferred from the account of the complainanl: ir his accounts and the documents under Ex.P1O to P13 discloses the amount. The trial Court further observcd that the complainant dicl rot file IT returns showing that the said amount of Rs. 1,29,69,000/- was paid to the accused, but when the accused himself admitte<l that the amounts were transferred from tl.re account of the complaina"nt to his accounts, as such, not filing of IT rr:turn_s has no consequence in th is case. .rrl /' I i I .l I i 8 0r

14. The reasons given by both the Courts below are based on record, reasonable and probable and have concurrently held t1 at the petitioner-accused is guilty of the offence and that he has failed to rebut the presumption, hence, this Court is not in a position to interfere with those concurrent findings and. facts regarding the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. In the result, the concurrent hndings made by the Courts below regarding the conviction of the petitioner is legally proper and correct and are not amenable for any revisional interference at the hands of this Court.

15. This court after careful consideration of the records available, is of the considered view that respondent No.2 has proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and the petitioner failed to rebut the same by adducing cogent and convincing evidence in order to rebut the presumption' |6.Asfarasthesentenceisconcerned,itisseenthatthetrialcourt had sentenced the revision petitioner - accused to undergo simple . to pay fine of imprisonment for one year with a direction Rs.65,OO,O00/- (Rupees Sixty Fifty Lakhs Only)' The appellate Court has concurred the said sentence and compensation amount' The Apex Court, in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalall and M/s' Gimpex I zoro 1sy scc oor I t 9 (Pl Ltd. Vd. Manoj Goealz, has held that the offence of dishonour of cheque envisagec in Section 138 of NI Act is essentially a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones by the legislative interventions mnrle through the amendments of the NI Act and that imposition of line payable as compensation to the complainant would be sufficient to rreet the ends of justice. Unless there are exceptional ald compelling; circumstances warranting the imposition of \ substantive sentonce, sentence of appropriate fine am<:unt would suffice. This Cor.rrt is definitely of the view that the r;ubstantive sentence of one yr ar simple imprisonment imposed by the cr>urts below is rather excessivt, and disproportionate. Since, the complarnt pertains to the year 2076 end the trial Court convicted the petitioner in the year 2O18 and the app,:llate Court conlirmed the judgment of the conviction and sentence in -he year 2022 and the petitioner is age<l about 54 years would have undergone mental agony by roaming i,Lround the Courts till toda5., therefore, this Court is of the considerecl opinion that the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the hne contponent. 17 . Except the above modihcation, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissecl, in all other aspects. However, the pt:titioner is directed to pay. lurther fine of Rs.2,O0,O0O/ - to the fir..e amount imposed by the tri,rl Court and the revision petitioner is direr:ted to pay altogether Rs.67.00,00O/- towards compensation (inclusive of the ' lzozz'1 tt scc los .1 10 6; €unounts if any deposited before tJ e trial court) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C within a period of one year from today. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months. The bail bonds of the petitioner sha,ll stand cancelled. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Vlll ,Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B.Nagar

2. The ll Special Magistrate at Hastinapuram, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri P. Animi Reddy. Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Padala Praveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies VH/PS I, I HIGH COURT DATED: 2410112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.826 of 2022 He S I4,. G 1 J o 2 3 tl'l t0Z5 7 o t D csF4-C DISMISSING TIHE CRL.R.C I