THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1168 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/complainant, challenging the judgment, dated 16.12.2015, passed in Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2015, by the Special Judge for Economic Offences- cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby, the order, dated 29.01.2015, passed in C.C.No.28 of 2014 by the III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, acquitting the respondent No.2 herein/accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act'), was confirmed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and perused the record. There is no representation for the unofficial respondent No.2/accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that the statutory legal notice issued to the respondent No.2/accused is valid and is in consonance with the provisions of N.I.Act. Further, non-filing of income tax returns of petitioner/complainant would not defeat his case. Respondent No.2/accused had not disputed the signature on the subject cheque. There is ample record to establish payment of Rs.3,40,028/- by way of subject cheque, dated 10.10.2013, to the respondent No.2/accused for his business 2 needs. In spite of the same, the trial Court erroneously acquitted the respondent No.2/accused, which was also confirmed by the lower appellate Court and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and remit back the matter the lower appellate Court for de novo consideration, after affording opportunity to the petitioner/complainant.
4. The material placed on record reveals that the lower appellate Court had examined the subject dispute in detail. The petitioner/complainant had not filed a single document to show that an amount of Rs.3,44,000/- was paid to respondent No.2/accused on 09.10.2013 towards hand loan to meet his business needs. Even the petitioner/complainant did not file his books of account in support of his case. Further, the petitioner/complainant did not file his income tax returns to substantiate his case. When a huge amount of Rs.3,44,000/- is alleged to have been lent to respondent No.2/accused, the petitioner/complainant ought to have filed some documentary evidence to substantiate the same. Further, the petitioner/complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 in the subject case, categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he has not obtained any receipt or promissory note from the respondent No.2/accused for the amount lent to him. The lower appellate Court rightly observed that no prudent man would believe that a huge amount of Rs.3,44,000/- would be arranged to the respondent No.2/accused without obtaining any documentary proof. Though bank statement of the 3 petitioner/complainant produced by him on 28.01.2015 before the trial Court shows an entry of withdrawal of Rs.3,40,028/- from his account on 10.10.2013 by way of cheque, the said transaction cannot be correlated with the subject dispute, since the alleged date of advancing hand loan to the respondent No.2/accused was 09.10.2013 and the date of withdrawal of amount was on 10.10.2013. Both the Courts below have examined all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner/complainant and rightly negated his claim.
5. Here, it is apt to mention here the object of the Revisional jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the Court to scrutinize the orders, which, on the face of them, bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded are based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Another well accepted norm is that the Revisional jurisdiction of the higher Court is very limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Revisional Court has to confine itself to the legality and propriety of the findings of the subordinate Court and as to whether the subordinate Court acted within its jurisdiction. A Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of 4 facts recorded by the learned Judge and impose and substitute its own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C., confer only limited power on the Revisional Court to the extent of satisfying about the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate Court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence. None of the considerations made above do exist in favour of the revision petitioner to vary the decisions reached by the Courts below. Furthermore, in the instant case, the impugned judgment does not suffer from illegality, impropriety or irregularity, warranting interference under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 25th October, 2021 Bvv