THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1652 OF 2007
ORDER:
Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anantapur in Crl.A.No.63 of 2006, dated 17.09.2007 the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case.
2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :
The Complainant is doing business in silk sarees at Dharmavaram Town and the petitioner/accused is also doing the same business at Rajahmundry. During the course of business, the petitioner purchased sarees from the complainant on credit basis and became indebted to the complainant. In discharge of the said debt, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.313398, dated 13.4.2002 for Rs.10,000/- drawn in favour of the Union Bank of India, Rajahmundry. When the complainant presented the said cheque into his bank i.e., Karur Vysya Bank at Dharmavaram for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement "Funds insufficient" on 25.07.2002. Having received the information from the bank, the petitioner got issued legal notice to the petitioner/accused and thereafter, filed a private complaint against him for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short '138 NI Act'). The case was numbered as C.C.No.462 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dharmavaram.
3. During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 on his behalf. No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. After closure of the complainant's evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which was denied by him.
2
4. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Judge convicted the accused under Section 138 NI Act, vide judgment dated 07.08.2006 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one year and also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner/accused to the complainant.
5. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ananthapur. After considering the material on record, the learned Sessions judge dismissed the appeal, vide Judgment dated 17.09.2007 confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court.
6. Heard Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Judge has already awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and seeks to take a lenient view in awarding the sentence of imprisonment, particularly as the offence took place in the year 2002 and also the cheque amount is only Rs.10,000/-.
8. As seen from the record, the amount covered by the cheque is only Rs.10,000/-and the sentence of imprisonment imposed by both the Courts below i.e., Rigorous imprisonment for one year is very harsh. As such, both the Courts below ought to have been liberal in awarding the sentence of imprisonment. Moreover, the learned trial Judge has already awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- i.e., cheque amount payable by the petitioner/accused to the complainant. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to 3 set aside the sentence of imprisonment, while maintaining the compensation payable to the complainant.
9. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, setting aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by both the Courts below, while maintaining the compensation of Rs.10,000/- payable to the complainant by the petitioner/accused.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J 18th February,2022.
RPD.
4
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1652 OF 2007 Dated : 18-02-2022 RPD