Telangana High Court
Veeravelli Raghava Chary vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp And ... on 15 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.895 of 2012
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 18.04.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.175 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam .
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 Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.2008, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to meet his personal necessities 1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 2 and after receiving the amount the petitioner executed a pronote in favour of respondent No.2 on the same day i.e., 21.07.2008 and agreed to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum and respondent No.2 made many demands to repay the said amount with interest, but the petitioner failed to repay the same on one pretext or another . Finally the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.692187, dated 26.12.2008 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Khammam Branch for Rs.75,000/- towards part satisfaction of the above debt and the said cheque was presented in Andhra Bank, Kaviraj Nagar Branch, Khammam on 26.12.2008 and it was returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient" on 27.12.2008. Thereafter a legal notice was issued on 31.12.2008 demanding the petitioner for repayment of the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and notice was served to the petitioner on 03.01.2009, but in spite of the same, he did not choose to make any payment and did not given any reply to the notice. Hence respondent No.2 constrained to file the complaint.
3
5. The learned trial Court furnished the case documents to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the petitioner, he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act'), for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. On trial, for respondent No.2/complainant PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the petitioner/accused DWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.D1.
7. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has passed the Judgment dated 01.12.2011 in C.C.No.258 of 2009 which reads as under:
"In the result, the Court found accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, accordingly, the accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default, of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months."
8. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the petitioner/accused has preferred Crl.A.No.175 of 2011 4 before the appellate Court, the appellate Court after examining the material facts before it has passed the following judgment:
"In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam in C.C.No.258 of 2009, dated 01.12.2011."
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 5 Rs.1,50,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner/accused to respondent No.2/complainant within a period of one year from today.
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