Telangana High Court
Rajan Sanghi, Hyd vs Smt. Babitha Agarwal, Hyd And Ano on 12 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1753 of 2014 &
2710 of 2016
COMMON ORDER :
Criminal Revision Case No.1753 of 2014 is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.03.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.1134 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and whereunder while upholding the conviction awarded to the accused vide Judgment dated 05.11.2012 in CC No.81 of 2011 on the file of the learned First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad the learned District Judge set aside the sentence awarded by the trial Court i.e. to pay a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- and in default of payment of such compensation amount to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and remitted back CC No.81 of 2011 to the trial Court for passing appropriate sentence after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides.
2. Criminal Revision Case No.2710 of 2016 is also filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.10.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and whereunder the findings of the learned XXIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad vide judgment dated 23.10.2015 in Page 2 of 9 CC No.917 of 2013 convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.13,25,000/- and in default to of payment of such fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for four months were confirmed.
3. Heard Sri A.Naren Rudra, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the matters, Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent in both the matters.
4. Since parties to both these criminal revision cases are one and the same and the subject matter to be adjudicated is one and the same, this Court disposed of these two matters through this common order.
5. The facts that lead to initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused in CC Nos.81 of 2011 and 917 of 2013, in brief, are that the accused/petitioner along with his close relatives approached, requested and availed a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the complainant assuring to pledge their properties stating that the said properties were free from all charges, encumbrances etc., and executed a pledge letter Ex.P1 but the accused/petitioner, in collusion with others, got one flat from and out of the said properties registered in the name of his wife against such pledge and hence, Crime No.91 of 2010, on the file of the Page 3 of 9 Central Crime Station was registered and during pendency of the said proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and accordingly, cheque bearing Nos.152733 and 152734 both dated 16.09.2010, drawn on Central Bank, Charminar Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.27,00,000/- and Rs.13,00,000/- respectively were issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, which, on presentation were returned unpaid due to insufficiency of the funds in the account of the petitioner under Ex.P4/memo. Accordingly, the unofficial respondent, after issuing statutory notice under Ex.P5 and complying with required procedural aspects, filed present criminal cases seeking to punish the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for his failure in honouring the subject cheques.
6. The respective trial Courts, upon considering the evidence available on record, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra.
7. The petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.1134 of 2012 and the unofficial respondent herein preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.373 of 2012 against the findings made in judgment in CC No.81 of 2011. Further, the petitioner herein also preferred Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2016 aggrieved by the findings of the learned Judge of the trial Court in CC No.917 of 2013. The learned District Judge of the appellate Court, while dismissing Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2016 Page 4 of 9 confirmed the findings of the trial Court in CC No.917 of 2013. The concerned learned District Judge of the appellate Court, while dismissing Criminal Revision Petition No.373 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.1134 of 2012, remitted back CC No.81 of 2011 to the trial Court for passing appropriate sentence, as stated supra.
8. Aggrieved by the findings of respective trial Courts and the District Courts, the present criminal revision cases are filed by the petitioner herein mainly contending that the said findings are contrary to law, facts of the case and are vitiated by material irregularity without there being any subsisting legally enforceable debt or the liability to be fastened under Sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act against the petitioner, ignored the fact that the petitioner rebutted presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act and also the fact that the petitioner is a stranger to the subject transaction and highhanded act of the unofficial respondent in forcibly obtaining signatures on blank papers, stamp papers, blank cheques etc.
9. In support of their case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various decisions, as under :
(1) Ch.Raghunandan and others Vs. State of Telangana represented by Special Public Prosecutor 1.1
2022(3) ALT (Crl.)123 Page 5 of 9 (2) Mohammed Iftequar Uddin Siddiqui, Hyderabad Vs.Mohammed Ghouse Mohiuddin, Hyderabad PP and others 2.
(3) Gunaganti Hanmandlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, through Sub-Inspector of Police, represented by its Public Prosecutor 3.
(4) Sangannagari Narasimulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 4. (5) State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Chitranjan Rangnath Raja and another 5.
(6) KP Chinnasamy Vs. TB Kennedy 6.
(7) Kusum @ Ujwala Abasaheb Waghmare and another Vs.
Dharu @ Abasaheb Sukhdeo Waghmare and another 7. (8) Daungarshi Madanlal Zunzunwala Vs. M/s.Deviprasa;d Omprakash Bajoria and another 8.
(9) Issakkimuthu Vs. Mallika 9.
(10) Ravi and others Vs.The State, rep. by the Inspector of
Police, CCIW/CID, Vellore 10
10. The main crux of the above referred decisions is that when the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in a right perspective, leading to miscarriage of justice, it is the bounden duty of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would factually submit that Sections 134 and 139 of Indian Contract Act shall come into play to shield the petitioner herein. However, such submission, in the considered view of this Court, cannot stand for legal scrutiny since 2 2000 SCC OnLine TS 3105 3 2011 SCC OnLine AP 1211 4 2005 SCC OnLine AP 1098 5 (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 516 6 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 1009 7 2015 SCC OnLine Bom. 6031 8 1985 SCC OnLine Bom.322 9 2012 SCC OnLine Mad. 2004 10 2008 SCC OnLine Mad. 486 Page 6 of 9 the petitioner has every opportunity to defend himself by putting forth his case before the Court below not in this criminal revision case.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the present criminal cases mainly contending that the findings of both the Courts below, in both the matters, are well considered findings and there is no necessity for interference with the same. In support of their contention that this Court need not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. unless the said findings are vitiated by perversity, error of law or jurisdictional error and that when the petitioner contended that the subject cheques were taken by force, being a prudent man, he needs to take appropriate recourse, relied upon the following decisions.
(1) Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar 11.
(2) Yarlagadda Narasimha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Public Prosecutor and another 12.
13. The case of the petitioner in both the criminal revision cases is that his signatures were obtained forcibly on some blank papers, cheques etc. In view of the fact that even after receipt of legal notice also he kept quiet without taking any action against the unofficial respondent the said defence cannot be countenanced. 11
(2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 197 12 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1952 Page 7 of 9 Furthermore, except oral assertion, there is no evidence to substantiate the same. Registration of Crime No.91 of 2010, Exs.P1 and P2 clinchingly prove the existence of legally enforceable debt in favour of the unofficial respondent and against the petitioner. The unofficial respondent, by examining herself as PW1 and examining PW2 and exhibiting Exs.P1 to P8 could able to prove dishonour of cheque Ex.P3 under Ex.P4 return memo and issuance of legal notice under Ex.P5 and receipt of the same by the petitioner under Ex.P6 postal acknowledgment, which contained the signatures of the petitioner and further, he admitted the same. The main grievance of the unofficial respondent is the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Courts below.
14. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he is not a borrower and he stood as guarantor for the loan amount and in such capacity he issued the subject cheques and hence, he cannot be fastened with the liability for the dishonour of the subject cheques. When he admitted issuance of subject cheques towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, either he is a borrower or guarantor, he is bound to honour the same and upon their dishonour, having failed to repay the same within the stipulated time, he is liable for the said dishonour.
Page 8 of 9
15. So far as the contention of the petitioner that awarding compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- without imposing sentence as contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act is concerned, law is well settled that under Section 138 of NI Act, after the amendment of 2002, the imprisonment that may be imposed may extend to two years, while fine may extend to twice the amount of cheque. However, the trial is conducted in summary way, then learned Magistrate can pass sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one year and amount of fine exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. But the Court below, directly ordered compensation amount without imposing fine against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the learned District Judge of the appellate Court, while upholding the conviction recorded against the accused in CC No.81 of 2011, remitted back the same to the trial Court for passing appropriate sentence after giving opportunity to the parties for hearing. When the said fact is evaluated with the evidence available on record, settled principle of law laid down, the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the learned District Judge in remitting back the case to the trial Court appears to be plausible and it cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present criminal revision cases.
Page 9 of 9
16. In the result, Criminal Revision Case Nos.1753 of 2014 and 2710 of 2016 are dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated : 12-01-2024 abb