The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.827 OF 2022 ORDER: This Crimirr,rl Revision Case is hled by the petition':rr-accused against the judgrrLent dated 21.11.2022 passed .in Crimirral Appeal No.160 of 2018 b't the learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Recldy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, "tht appellate Court"), conhrmir.ll the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Spx:ciai Magistrate at Hasthinapuram, R. R District in C.C.No. 132 of 20L6 dated 18.O1.2018, wherein the revisiorr petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sect on 138 of Negotiable Instruntents Act, 188 1 (for short "NI Act") and se ntenced to undergo simpl,: imprisonment for one year and pa r' hne of Rs.35,00,OOO/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) as comp( nsation to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Mr G.Gurumurthy, learned counsel rt'presenting Mr.P.Animi Redd.r, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Padala Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 r.Lnd Mr.E. Ganesh, learnerl ,\ssistant Public Prosecutor appearing or L behalf of respondent No. I -State.

3. The brief feu:ts of the case are that the accused is rr'rnning frlm distribution. Resrpondent No.2 complainant knou.n the accused through his sistr:r Smt.Subhadra Devi. The accused requested 2 compiainant for hnancial 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.30,62,0OO/- in installments during January,2015 to March, 2O15 through online transfers and self drawn .cheques and cash. Accordingly, after receipt of the amount from compiainant, the accused has executed a promissory note dated 28.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.3O,62,OOO/-. Again the complainant paid an amount of Rs.99,O7,000/- 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 i56 gold coins and one Vaddanam and shown number of counter foils of bank payments at SBL The accused misrepresented the complainant ald it is essential for him to pay amounts to various Government Departments and banks within a specified period, in order to get release the gold coins aliotted 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 additiorial amount of Rs.99,07,000/- in installments from April, 2015 to July, 2015 through online transfer, self drawn cheques and through direct cash. The accused received total amount of Rs. 1,29,69,000/- from the complainant. Accordingly, the accused executed promissory notes to d tt&. 3 the complainant. S/hen the complainant insisted the accused to repay the amount, the accused issued four postdated chequr':s bearing Nos.O34607 for Rs.5O,00,0OO/-, 034608 for Rs.50,00,000/ -, 034609 for Rs.30,OO,OO07' and 034610 for Rs.3O,75,0O0/-, dated -2.O5.2016 in favour of tlrt: complainant drawn on ICICI Bank, I'iarkatpura branch. The comclainant got doubt on the character ol the accused with regard to coltnter foils and letters from various depart-ments, he approached tht: SBI, Local Head Office, Hyderabad, there, they confirmed that nc payments were made through the ban k and the account numbe:rs indicated in the counter foils shown by t)re accused to the complainartt are not genuine and they are fake a nd forged. Thereafter, the r;ornplainant approached the RBI and Lau' dr:partment, Government of Telangana to verify the genuineness of thr, letters of correspondence fr-r>m these departments, they conltrmed th rt they did not issue any such correspondence and no such let.ters were dispatched from r.heir office. On that the complainant appr'rached the Commissioner of )olice and lodged a complaint against tl.e accused and they referre d -he matter to Central Crime Station, Hydt rabad and the CCS, Hyderabrd registered Crime No.215 of 2Ol5 for tlre offences under Sections ,4()5, 42O,468 and 47 | of IPC against the ac,rused. On

26.05.2016, rvherL the complainant presented the cheqrre bearing No.O34610 for ar amount of Rs.30,75,000/- through ICICI Bank, the same was returned with an endorsement 'account blockeci (situation covered in 21 25)' vide cheque return memo dated 2'7.05.2016. 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 gave any reply, nor paid any amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the accused for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act

4. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 18.O1.2018 in C.C.No.132 of 2016, found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishabie under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay hne of Rs.35,00,OO0/- (Rupees Thirty 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.O 1 .2018 in C.C.No.132 of 2076, 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. 160 of 2018, which came to be dismissed on 21.11 .2022, conhrming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Judgments and sentence passed by the learned trial Court are bad in law as both the trial and appellate Courts below have not ._itri:l 5 considered the er,:dence and documents produced by the petitioner- accused and nct applied its judicial mind and only relying upon tJle evidence and dc<;rrments produced by the complainant, tlre learned Magistrate arriv,:tl at a wrong conclusion and convicted the aLccused. It is further urged -hat the impugned Judgments . are only based on assumptions ancl presumption, but not based on real facts and material on record. It is further urged by the learned coursel for the petitioner that tlLt: complainant failed to discharge initial burden of debt cast upon b im under law. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revision.

7. Per contrzr, r.he leamed counsel for respondent No.2 I ehemently justified the co;tr:rlrrent frndings of conviction and submil s that the petitioner has not led any evidence to rebut the presumpticn which is mandatory. The transaction even though denied by the pelitioner, no clinching evide:rr:r: was produced to rebut the presumption. The Courts below alterr considering the oral and documentarl' eridence on record, rightly rc<:orded the conviction and there is no i: rfirmit5r or illegality in the fi rdings of the Courts below, therefore, i: rterference with the said find ngs may not be warranted. Having subritted thus, learned counsel frr respondent No.2 prays to dismiss tlLe revision petition.

8. This Court treing a Revisional Court, having regard tc, the scope and limits envisag:d to appreciate the facts and law, it is nr:cessary to ) 6 c1, l 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.

9. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Prodedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyze ald re- interpret the evidence on record.

10. On behalf of the complainant, the trial Court examined PWs. 1 to 6 and marked Exs.Pl to P23. On behalf of the defence, the petitioner- accused himself examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D8. Upon carefui 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 complainalt established its case that the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant 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 Act. Further, in the appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by t1-e 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 O3461O to S.Subhadra Devi 7 for the purpose of the film sub-distribution and the said S. Subhadra Devi also issued zr cheque No.448507 for an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- in his favour €rs security to the business transact-ions and subsequently son:e disputes arose between them and he asked to return his signe,C trlank cheques. Then the said S..Subhadri, Devi bore grudge on him anc got hled the complaint through the comptainant.

72. PWs.2 ancl 3 who are attestors of the execution of the 1>romissory notes, categorically stated in their cross examination thar. they put signatures as ar.te stors after going through the bank statelnents and satisfying about t-re transferring the amount to the acco'.rnt of the accused. They put their signatures on the promissory notes Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 and also on the undertaking under Ex.P6.

13. The accuserl rvho examined as DW.l has admitted ir his cross examination tha t ,he amounts were transferred from the rLccount of the complainant 1o his accounts and the documents under trx.P10 to P13 discloses the amount. The trial Court further observe,l that the complainant did not lile IT returns showing that the said rmount of Rs.1,29,69,000/- vas paid to the accused, but when th: accused himself admittecl t:-rat the amounts were transferred from tlre account of the complainant to his accounts, as such, not filing of IT r<,turns has no consequence ir: this case. 8 (,;

14. The reasons given by both the Courts below are based on record, reasonable and probable and have concurrently held that 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 hndings and facts regarding the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. In the result, the concurrent findings 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 gr.rilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and the petitioner faiied to rebut the same by adducing cogent and convincing evidence in order to rebut the presumption.

16. As far as the sentence is concerned, it is seen that the trial court had sentenced the revision petitioner - accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a direction to pay fine of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirtl 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 ' zoro (s) scc oor t \ 9 (P) Ltd. Vd. Manoj Goeal2, has held that the offence of dir;honour of cheque envisagecl in Section 138 of NI Act is essentially a ,:ivil wrong which has beerL given criminal overtones by the legislative interventions made through the amendments of the NI A< t and that imposition o[ fine payable as compensation to the complaitiant would be sufficient to nn)et the ends of justice. Unless there are exceptional and compelling circumstances warranting the imposition of substantive sentence, sentence of appropriate fine amoL.r.nt would suffice. This Court is dehnitely of the view that the substantive sentence of one ycrr simple imprisonment imposed by the cc,urts below is rather excessiv,: and disproportionate. Since, the complaint pertains to the year 2016, rr rd the trial Court convicted the petitioner in the year 2018 and the apprllate Court confirmed the judgment of the conviction and sentence in the year 2022 and the petitioner is aged about 54 years would hara: undergone mental agony by roaming a round the Courts till today, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of innrisonment can be reduced to the fine cornponent. 77 . Except the above modihcation, the Criminal Revi sion Case stands dismissed, in all other aspects. However, the petitioner is directed to pay further hne of Rs.2,O0,000/- to the fire amount imposed by the rlriril Court and the revision petitioner is direr:ted to pay altogether Rs.3'7, (r0,00O/ - towards compensation (inclusive of the 'izozz.y r t scc ros 10 6 amounts if any deposited before the 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 shali stand cancelled. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed' SD/- M MANJULA JOINT REGISTRAR l //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

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

2. The ll Special Magistrate at Hastinapuram, Ranga Reddy District 3. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

5. One CC to Sri P- Animi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Padala Praveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies VI]/PSL N d I HIGH COURT DATED: 2414Xt2025 ORDER CRLRC.No"821' of 2022 SI qX G e ) c J 2I Ai|1 ?i125 ( C] D -.:--- DISMISSING TI{E CRL.R,C r0 q