The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.825 oF 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitiorrer-accused against the judqn-rent dated 21.11.2022 passed'in Crimlnal Appeal No.158 of 201iB by the learned VIII Additional MetropolitiLn Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, ,,the appellate Court"), confirr.:irrg the judgment of conviction and sentenc: passed by , the learned II Sp,ecial Magistrate at Hasthinapuram, R.R District in C.C.No.147 of :2016 dated 18.01.2018, wherein the rcvisio-r petitioner has been conv ct,ld for the offence punishable undcr Sec:ion 13g of Negotiable Instrl.rnents Act, 188 i (for short "NI Act',) and s(rntenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pry fine of Rs.35,00,OO0/- (Flupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) as comp,rnsation to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.p.C.

2. Heard Mr.G.Gurumurthy, learned counsel ritpresenting Mr.P.Animi Re,Crii., learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.padala Praveen Kumar, l,:arned counsel respondent No.2 and Mr. tr. Ganesh, learned Assistarlt Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of -espondent No.1-State.

3. The brief fiurts of the case are that the accused is n;nning fi1m distribution. Resrpondent No.2 - complainant knor.l,n thLe accused through his sisrr:r Smt.Subhadra Devi. The accused requested I : I i I I l i I i I I i I I i I i I I I I I Ir z complainant 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.3O,62,000/- in installments during January, 2015 to March, 2015 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 28.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.3O,62,000/-. Again the complainant paid an amount of Rs.99,O7,000/- to the accused. When the complainant demanded the ' .""u""d to repay the amounl, he stated that he had participatcd in a gold auction conducted by Air Cargo, a Government of India undertaking and the accused had successfully 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 specified 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. 1 Crore. On believing the letters and bank counter foils shown by the accused, the complainant had advanced additional amount of Rs.99,O7,000/- in installments from April, 2O15 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 ) J the complainant. When the complainant insisted the accuseci to repay the amount, the accused issued four postdated cheques bearing Nos.O34607 for F1s.5O,00,000/-, 034608 for Rs.50,OO,0OOl-, 034609 for Rs.30,OO,O00/- and 034610 for Rs.30,75,O0O/-, dated t2.OS.2Ot6 in favour of the complainant drawn on ICICI Bank, l3arkatpura branch. The c,trr plainant got doubt on the character of t-re accused with regard to ,lounter foils and ietters from various depar tments, he approached the SBI, Local Head Ofhce, Hyderabad, there, they ,, confirmed that no payments were made through the bar. k and the account numbers indicated in the counter foils shorvn bv tl,rc accused to the complainzLnt are not genuine and they arc fakc e nd forged. Thereafter, the 6olnpl6in2nt approached the RBI and Lalr. d epartment, Government of Telangana to verify the genuineness of th,: letters of correspondence fi'rtm these departments, they confirmed th,lt they did not issue any such correspondence and no such Iel,ters were dispatched from their office. On that the complainant applrached the commissioner oI l)olice and lodged a complaint against the accused and they referred t.he matter to Central Crime Station, Hl.derabad and the CCS, Hyder.tr;rd registered Crime No.215 of 2015 for tlie offences under Section s ,l(tr., 420,468 and 47 7 of lpC against the ac,::used. On 26.05.2016, u,hen the complainant presented the cheqt e bearing No.034609 for an amount of Rs.3O,0O,OOO/_ through ICICI Bank, the same was returred with an endorsement ,account blocked,. ThereRpon, the c,tmplainant got issued statutory legal notice to the q 4 accused through RPAD postal receipt, the accused received the said notice, but has not gave any reply, nor paid any amount to the compiainant. Hence, the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 2O0 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 18.01.2018 in C.C.No.147 of 2016, 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 pay fine of Rs.35,00,OOO/- (Rupees Thirty Fifty Lakhs Only) 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 18.01.2018 in C.C.No.147 of 2076, the accused has preferred an appeal before the VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crl.A.No.158 of 2O18, which came to be dismissed on

21.1I.2022, confirming 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 is bad in law as both the Courts below have not considered the evidence and documents produced by the petitioner-accused and not applied its judicial mind and only relying upon the evidence and ,.4 .t*rrl&*:&&**:;,- 5 documents prodrrced by the complainant, the learned Magistrate arrived at a wronf{ conclusion and convicted the accused. ]t is further urged that the irrLpugned Judgments are only based on a,;sumptions and presumptior., but not based on real facts and materiai on record. It is further urq,r,l by the learned counsel for the petition rr that the complainant fajlerl to discharge initial burden of debt casl upon him under law. Therelbre, he seeks to allow this Revisior-r.

7. Per contrrl, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 ,,ehemently justified the con:urrent findings of conviction and submirs that the petitioner has r: ot led any evidence to rebut the prcsumpticrn rvhich is mandatory. The ',r'ansaction even though denied by thc pe itioner, no clinching eviden,r,: ll.as produced to rebut the presumpr_ion. The Courts below altr:r' considering the oral and documen[ary. e.ri,1.rr"" on record, rigl-rtly rr'c.orded the conviction and there is no i: rfirmity or illegality in the Ii;'rdings of the Courts below, therefore, irrterference with the said fin<lings may not be warranted. Having subm itted thus, learned counsel f,rr respondent No.2 prays to dismiss tlre revision petition.

8. This Court Lerng a Revisional Court, having regard to the scope and limits envisiagr:d to appreciate the facts and law, it is ne.cessary to have a cursory lool: upon the evidence and also the 1au,, to as,certain as to whether any ille;]ality or perversity or error committed by rhe courts below in recording [he conviction. I 6 a

9. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure 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 trial Court examined PWs. 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P23. On behalf of the defence, the petitioner- accused himself examined as DW 1 and got marked Exs.D 1 to D8. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court obserued that the accused did not rebut the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, with any convincing material or evidence and the complainant estabtished its case that the accused issued trx.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant towards discharge of lega11y 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 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 O34610 to S.Subhadra Devi 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,OO,O00/- in his favour as security to the business transactions and I 1 subsequently s()rr e disputes arose between them and hr asked to return his signed blank cheques. Then the said S. SubhadriL Devi bore grudge on him anc[ got hled the complaint through the complainant.

12. PWs.2 an<l 3 who are attestors of the execution of the :rromissory notes, catcgorica ly stated in their cross examination thar- they put signatures as ar-t3stors after going through the bank statetnents and satisfying aboul. the transferring the amount to the accorrnt of the accused. Thelr put their signatures on the promissory notes Ex.P7 to trx.P9 and also or the undertaking under Ex.P6.

13. The accuse,l u,ho examined as DW. I has admitted ir his cross examination the t ,he amounts were transferred from thc i rccount of the complainant ro his accounts and the documents under Ex.plO to P 13 discloses thre amount. The trial Court further obserr,,e,l that the complainant did "rot file IT returns showing that the said amount of Rs.1,29,69,00O/ - .vas paid to the accused, but u,hen the accused himself admittecl I tat the amounts were transferred from the account of the complalnan t to his accounts, as such, not hling of lT rr,turns has no consequence irL this case.

74. The reasons given by both the Courts below are based ,tn record, reasonable and grrobable and have concurrently held that the petitioner-accused is guilty of the offence and that hc has failed to rebut the presumttion, hence, this Court is not in a P,lsition I !1 8 interfere with those concurrent findings and facts regarding the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. In t1.e resuit, the concurrent hndings rnade 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.

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 ltne of Rs.35,OO,OO0/- (Rupees Thirty Fifty Lakhs Oniy). The appellate Court has concurred the said sentence and compensation amount. The Apex Court, in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babahll and M/s. Gimpex (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 I zoro 1s; scc oor 1zozz1 tt scc tos 2 9 imposition of fine payable as compensation to the compla,nant would be sufficient to rrleet the ends of justice. Unless there are exceptional and compellit-rg circumstances warranting the imposition of \ \ i i I l substantive sen t lnce, sentence of appropriate fine amount would suffice. Tl'ris Cor-rrt is dehnitely of the view that the substantive sentence of one rr:ar simple imprisonment imposed bi, the crurts below is rather excess;ir,,t and disproportionate. Since, the compla Lnt pertains to the year 2016 zLnd the trial Cour[ convicted the petitioner in the year : 2018 and the apnellate Court confirmed the judgment of thc conviction and sentence in the year 2022 and the petitioner is age,l about 54 years wor-rlcl havc undergone mental agony by roaming rround the Courts till toda.y, ,herefore, this Court is of the considered c,pinion that the sentence of irrprisonment can be reduced to the fine cortponent.

17. Excepl thr: above modification, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismisserl, in all other aspects. However, the p:titioner is directed to palr' iurther hne of Rs.2,O0,O0O/- to the firre amount imposed b1, the tl'ial Court and the revision petitioner is dire cted to pay altogether Rs.37,l0,O0O/- towards compensation (inclusive of the amounts if any d eposited before the trial court) to the complainant under Section 35? (3) of Cr.P.C within a period of one 5.ear lrom today. If the petitioner iiLils to comply with the aforesaid directio n, he shall suffer simple implisonment for a period of six (O6) months. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled. 10 Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- B.SATY JOINT REGI THI RAR To //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Vlll Additional lvletropolitan 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. [OUT] ,4. One CC to Sri P. Animi Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Padala Praveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CD Copies ViIIPSI, HIGH COURT' DATED: 24141n025 ..:1. : ihL I ,J 3 29 APii 2[6 z L) A t o,t$;n6rg.r€ .t. -* ORDER CRLRC.No.82li of 2022 DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C { ,(1