Telangana High Court
N.Anjaiah, Medak Dt., vs S.Ravinder Rao, Rr.Dt And Anr, Rep Pp., on 15 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.307 of 2017
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 01.08.2012 passed in C.C.No.144 of 2012 on the file of the I Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally (for short 'the trial Court') and the same is confirmed by the Judgment dated 31.10.2016 passed in Crl.A.P.No.372 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'the appellate Court').
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.
3. This Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1", wherein it was categorically held that the High 1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 2 Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein/accused is the family friend of respondent No.1 herein/complainant and out of the said acquaintance the petitioner on 28.09.2005 requested respondent No.1 for hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of his agricultural and business needs and promised respondent No.1 to repay the same within a short period and respondent No.1 has advanced the said amount to the petitioner. On repeated requests made by respondent No.1, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.998225, dated 20.06.2007 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Podichanpally Branch, Medak and requested respondent No.1 to present the same on 24.07.2007 as he could not arrange the amount in his bank account by 20.06.2007 assuring that the cheque would be honoured. Respondent No.1 presented the cheque on 24.07.2007 with his banker, i.e., Canara Bank, Balanagar Branch, Hyderabad, but the same was returned to respondent No.1 on 18.08.2007 by way of debit advise memo by respondent No.1 bank. Thereafter, respondent No.1 3 issued legal notice dated 13.09.2007 calling upon the accused to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice but the petitioner having received the notice on 15.09.2007 neither replied the notice nor repaid the amount. Hence respondent No.1 constrained to file the complaint.
5. Originally the case was filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally and the learned Magistrate took the case on file and numbered as C.C.No.1753 of 2007 and issued summons to the petitioner. Later, the case was transferred to I Special Magistrate Court, Kukatpally and renumbered as C.C.No.144 of 2012. After receipt of summons, the petitioner appeared before the court and the copies of the documents relied by respondent No.1 were furnished to the petitioner and he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Respondent No.1/complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and also examined PW.2 in support of his case. The petitioner/accused examined 4 himself as DW.1 and DW.2 and 3 in support of his case and got marked Exs.D1 to D4.
7. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has passed the Judgment dated 01.08.2012 in C.C.No.144 of 2012 which reads as under:
"32. In the result, I find the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, the accused is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for three months and also under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant in default of suffer SI for three months."
8. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the petitioner/accused has preferred Crl.A.P.No.372 of 2012 before the appellate Court, the appellate Court after examining the material facts before it has passed the following judgment:
"13. In the result, the appeal of the appellant/convict/accused is dismissed by confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the learned I Special Magistrate, Kukatpally in C.C.No.144 of 2012 dated 01.08.2012 wherein the learned trial Judge found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. However, the 5 default of sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for non payment of compensation is set aside."
Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is preferred.
9. The findings of both the Courts below with regard to guilty of the petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused did not place anything before this Court, to discredit the evidence. Therefore, there is no interference warranted as far as payment of compensation is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place long back and during this period the 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 petitioner/accused while maintaining the compensation imposed by the trial Court. The said compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner/accused to respondent No.1/complainant within a period of one year from today.
6
10. Except the above modification, no further interference of this Court is warranted with respect to the order passed by the learned appellate Court. Accordingly, the present criminal revision case is partly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated: 15.02.2024 vsu