ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VEI.IUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No

1 G.V. Vara Prasad, S/o G. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee R/o. LIG 73 Dharmareddy Colony Phase ll, Opp. MRO Office Kukatpally Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RespondenUComplainant 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L.K. Sharma Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VEI.IUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1587 of 2074 ORDER: The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Juclgment dated

22.07.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.387 of 2011 on th,: file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions ]udge, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad (for short'the appellate Court') by confirming the Judgment dated29.07.2011 passed in C.C.No.46 of 2017 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge-cum-XlX Aclditional Chief Metropolitan Magiskate, City Crinrinal Court, Hyderabad (for short'the trial Court').

2. The brief facts of the case are that accusecl is doing real estate business at Hyderabad, while the complainant lSa private employee. With the amount which l-re gct frorn his parents and relatives, he is doing petty business. llhe accused assured the complainant that if the complainallt is ready to invest the amount in his real estate business, hc would give 2 good will to the said amounts. The complainant believed the accused and secured amount from others and the accused took Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 09.11.2006 by passing a hand receipt and agreed to pay Rs.1,25,000/_ as good will within five months. The accused also took Rs.7,00,000/_ on

05.01.2007 and promised to pay Rs.7,75,000/ _ as good will and also promised to pay the principal amount on or before

08.03.2007. All the amounts were taken bv the accused for the purpose of entering into the sale agreement with the owner of the land in Sy.No.S9/Aa at Kothapet village. On demand made by the complainant for principal amount and for the good will amount, the accused issued two cheques for Rs.2,00,000/- each, but the cheques were dishonoured when presented for collection. A notice was issued, but the accused did not choose to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint.

3. During the course of trial, the complainant himself examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.p_1 to p_g. There is no 3 evidence adduced on behalf of the accused, but got marked Ex.D-1. 4 After appreciating the oral and documentarl. er.idence on record, the learned Magistrate found that the act:r_Lsed guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of IrlI Act and convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.p.C. The a,ccused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a periocl of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of ciryment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months 5 Aggrieved by which, the appellant/accusecl preferrecl Criminal Appeal No.387 of 2011before the appellate (lourt, rhe learned appellate Court after examining the mate,rial facts before it and upon considering the trial Court ]udgment in C.C.No.46 of 2017 has dismissed the criminal appeal con-firming the Judgment and convicfion passed Ly the trial Cqu{ Challenging the same, the present revision is fited i !-\ --r

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and perused the record.

7. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilt of the revision petitioncr/accused and the learned counsel for the revision petibioner/ accused did not appear and place anything before this Court, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2006 and this revision was filed in the year 2014 and almost 11 years have passed and during this period, the revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused 5 while maintaining the compensation imposed t,y the Lrial Court.

8. The Criminal Revision case is dismissed. Ttre. conviction imposed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court is confirmed. Flowever, the sentence imposed by the trial Court to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of or-rr: year is set off to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused, while maintaining the cornpensation imposed by the trial Court against him Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SI]/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR t, \ ''-- -- =,- I;ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (with r#ords if any) 2. rhe XV Additional Judge-cum-XlX Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the stale of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri L K. Sharma, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies KanVPSL & HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1587 ot 2014 t,\ ,.\' c:.., 1E iLU ?Cfr .:1 \' ':. . 'i.. 1)r1., '-:-: - --l - <r'../,r t.v' -,,? DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 1 ,),\