THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1161 OF 2012
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners/accused under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2010 dated 16.07.2012 passed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar wherein the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, awarded to the petitioners vide judgment dated 29.05.2010 in CC No.684 of 2009 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District was confirmed.
2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel representing on behalf of Ms.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/2nd respondent. None appeared for the 1st respondent.
3. The brief facts that lead to registration of CC No.684 of 2009 are that the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent are the Page 2 of 6 colleagues in APSRTC and due to the said acquaintance, the 1st petitioner approached and obtained a hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from the 1st respondent agreeing to repay the same within six months and executed a promissory note under Ex.P1 but failed to repay the same and on persistent demands, he issued cheque bearing No.984721 for an amount of Rs.20,000/- and the 2nd petitioner i.e. the wife of 1st petitioner issued another cheque bearing No.984723 for Rs.30,000/- both dated 10.07.2006 and drawn on State Bank of India, Charminar Branch, Hyderabad towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt. However, on presentation of the same, both the cheques under Exs.P2 and P3 were dishonoured by the bank vide return memo dated 12.07.2006 under Ex.P4 with the endorsement "insufficient funds". Accordingly, the 1st respondent got issued legal notice dated 10.08.2006 covered under original of Ex.P5. Since the petitioners did not repay the amount or issued reply, the 1st respondent filed a complaint and the criminal law was set in motion.
4. The learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at LB Nagar, upon consideration of entire evidence on record in the form of PW.1, DWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P8 and Ex.D1 found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and convicted them as stated supra. The said findings were confirmed Page 3 of 6 by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.
5. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the petitioners filed the present criminal revision case contending that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and failed to see that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the findings of both the Courts below are well reasoned and there is no need to interfere with the same.
6. The petitioners denied to have issued the subject cheques and on the other hand their defence before the trial Court was that by taking advantage of his acquaintance with the 1st petitioner, the 1st respondent stolen the cheques and by forging their signatures, they presented the cheques and upon their dishonour, the present criminal case was filed. The said version appears to be improbable as forging the signatures of two persons on stolen cheques is a very hard task and that the bank has returned those cheques for the reason of insufficient funds but not on the ground of not tallying the signatures. Further, the petitioner did not make any efforts to send the disputed signatures on the cheques and promissory note to the expert. When the signatures on the cheques and promissory note are disputed by the Page 4 of 6 party to get shelter from the punishment for dishonour of the said instruments, a prudent person can resort to take steps to prove his innocence by sending those disputed cheques for expert's opinion but for the reasons best known to the petitioners, they did not take such recourse.
7. It is evident from the record that during the course of proceedings before the trial Court, the petitioners were asked to compare their signatures appearing on Exs.P1 to P3 with their admitted signatures in Memo of Appearance, filed on their behalf. The 1st petitioner denied similarity between them but the 2nd petitioner admitted them as similar. So far as service of notices is concerned, the endorsement made on Ex.P8 unserved postal covers shows as "addressee left" and "addressee out of station" which amounts to service of notice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot deny knowledge of the matter contained in the legal notice.
8. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, it can be stated that the petitioners having issued cheques for discharge of their legally enforceable debt to the 1st respondent, failed to honour the same and on their dishonour, even they failed to repay the same within the stipulated period or gave reply and hence, the 1st respondent has rightly initiated the criminal proceedings and by adducing cogent, Page 5 of 6 convincing and reliable evidence, proved the guilt of the petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners except making several contentions, they failed to substantiate the same by adducing evidence. Considering all these facts, both the Courts below have rightly found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The said findings are well reasoned findings and they cannot be interfered with by this Court.
9. So far as the sentence of imprisonment, imposed against the petitioners is concerned, from the dishonour of cheques and consequent initiation of proceedings the petitioners have been roaming around the Courts for defending themselves by facing mental agony and trauma. This itself is a sufficient ground to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the Courts below is concerned. Therefore, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the petitioners is hereby reduced to that of the period of imprisonment which they have already undergone directing them to jointly and severally pay a compensation amount equivalent to double the cheques' amount to the 1st respondent/de-facto complainant while upholding the fine amount imposed by the trial Court. In default of payment of compensation amount, the petitioners shall undergo the period of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below.
Page 6 of 6
10. Except the above modification in respect of period of sentence of rigorous imprisonment, this criminal revision case in all other aspects is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated : 23-09-2023 abb