Telangana High Court
Linga Bhasker Rao, vs Linga Subba Rao, And Another, on 21 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1285 OF 2012
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated 18.01.2012 in C.C.No.69 of 2011 on the file of the learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. Anand, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Subhash, learned counsel representing Ms. Bonala Saramma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2008, petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from respondent No.1/complainant and issued a cheque bearing No.394997 dated 30.06.2008 of ICICI Bank, Punjagutta Branch 2 for a sum of Rs.3,88,000/- and cash worth Rs.12,000/-. The accused executed a promissory note for the said amounts on the same day and issued a post dated cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- to realize the said sum. It is stated that accused was also due an amount of Rs.1,56,000/- to the complainant as on 30.09.2010 towards interest accrued @ 36% per annum. On presentation, the said cheque issued for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was returned unpaid by the bank with a reason "account closed".
4. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice to the accused requesting him to repay the amount within the stipulated time. But the accused neither replied the said notice nor repaid the amount.
5. Added to it the other cheque issued by the accused for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards interest due as on 30.09.2010, on presentation, was also returned unpaid by the Bank with a reason "funds insufficient". The complainant again issued the legal notice but the accused failed to repay the said amount as well. Hence, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act").
3
6. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found the accused guilty of the alleged offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred an appeal.
7. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra, sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred a Revision seeking to enhance the punishment imposed against the accused and direct him to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation for the alleged dishonour.
8. Vide order dated 30.07.2012 in Criminal Revision Petition No.62 of 2012, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- within six months from the date of the judgment. Failing which, the complainant was granted liberty to 4 recover the same as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. or other relevant Acts. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court concurrently found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section.138 of NI Act. Learned counsel relied upon the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.1708 & 1709 of 2016 in/and Crl.R.C.No.2887 of 2015, wherein and whereby, this Court upon taking into consideration the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal 1, R. Vijayan Vs. Baby 2, S.R. Sunil & Company Vs. D. Srinivasavaradan 3, Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvi 4 and Somnath Sarka Vs. Utpal Basu Mallick5, wherein it was held that, the object of incorporating the penal provisions under Sections 138 to 142 of the NI Act is not only to provide a strong criminal remedy to deter the high incidence of dishonour of cheques but a remedy of punitive nature and observed that where there is a conviction, there should be a consequential levy of fine 1 2010 (5) SCC 663 2 (2012) 1 SCC 260 3 (2014) 16 SCC 32 4 (2015) 9 SCC 622 5 2013 (16) SCC 465 5 amount sufficient to cover the cheque amount along with simple interest thereon at a fixed rate of 9% per annum and held that the interest should be followed by an award of such sum as compensation from the fine amount. However, to meet the ends of justice, modified the sentence of six months of simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, to imprisonment till rising of the day by giving set off to the period undergone if any and fine of Rs.10,00,000/- of which Rs.50,000/- would go to the State and Rs.9,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant which includes Rs.10,000/- fine if paid to adjust and out of it in compensation received by complainant, for the balance to pay or deposit within one month from that day, failing which, the accused was to suffer the default sentence of six months simple imprisonment for the lower Court to levy under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. and enforce it. Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders relying upon the said order.
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the same and contended that respondent No.2 underwent severe mental agony by roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the both the Courts upon 6 appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, rightly passed their respective judgments. But, as the matter is pending from the year 2012 learned counsel sought to pass appropriate orders.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned counsel and upon perusing the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.1708 & 1709 of 2016 in/and Crl.R.C.No.2887 of 2015, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, while giving set off to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
12. In default of payment of the said amount, the judgment dated 30.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad stands good in all respects.
13. Upon depositing the said amount, respondent No.1/ complainant is granted liberty to withdraw the same with immediate effect.
7
14. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of. Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedies available under law.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 21.02.2024 ESP