THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.872 of 2015
ORDER:
1 This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 06.04.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.302 of 2013 by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, confirming the judgment dated 29.04.2013 in C.C.No.191 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the IV Special Magistrate Court, Kukatpally at Miyapur, wherein and whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs towards compensation to P.W.1 within six months.
2 The case of the complainant is that the complainant and the petitioner are well acquainted with each other and that at the request of the petitioner, the complainant gave loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the petitioner by selling his flat. The petitioner promised to repay the same amount within six months and executed two promissory notes each for Rs.5.00 lakhs towards discharge of his liability. Since the petitioner failed to repay the amount, the complainant presented the cheques into his bank which were 2 dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 01.12.2011 to the petitioner demanding him to repay the amounts. Since the petitioner neither chose to give reply nor to pay the amounts covered under the cheques, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3 During the trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and he also got examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. 4 Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner issued two blank cheques and executed two promissory notes towards security to the father of P.W.1 in connection with another transaction and subsequently the said cheques and promissory notes were misused and no consideration was passed under the cheques. It is his further contention that P.W.1 admitted that he did not show the amount in question in income tax returns which shows his incapacity to lend such huge amount and hence the amount is not legally recoverable. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.D.Thomas Vs. 3 P.S.Jaleel 1 and R.Chennakesava Rao vs. P.Laxmi Narasaiah 2 in support of his contentions.
5 Per contra, Sri V.Venkata Mayur, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that out of acquaintance only the complainant lent the amount to the petitioner for his business purpose and the petitioner executed Exs.P.1 and P.2 promissory notes and subsequently issued Exs.P.3 and P.4 cheques in discharge the said amount. When the cheques were dishonoured on presentation, the complainant by following the due procedure filed the complaint after issuance of legal notice. 6 The complainant discharged his onus by proving the signatures of the petitioner on Exs.P1 to P.4 as contemplated under Sections 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act. The evidence of P.W.2 also corroborates the version of P.W.1, the complainant. The petitioner did not dispute his signatures on the above documents. The complainant also proved the service of notice validly on the petitioner since Ex.P.7 notice as well as the address mentioned on the promissory notes is one and the same. The complainant established how he secured the amount by producing Ex.D.1 document, which shows that he sold the flat to one M.Bhujangarao 1 (2009) 14 SCC 398 2 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 631 4 for Rs.16,92,000/-. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
7 Therefore and upon perusal of the entire material available on record, I am of the considered view that the complainant has established the case beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption available to him under law. 8 In the result, the criminal revision case is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
9 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal revision case shall also stand dismissed.
------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 13.09.2023 Kvsn