Telangana High Court
Kanukuntla Satish Kumar vs The State Of Ap, And Another on 13 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2443 of 2012
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed seeking to call for the records and set aside the order of the learned IV Additional Sessions (FTC) Judge, Warangal in Crl.A.No.41 of 2012, dated 07.11.2012 confirming the order of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for PCR Cases at Warangal in C.C.No.504 of 2010, dated 14.03.2012
2. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 06.03.2024. Even today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused. Therefore, 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. 1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 2
3. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent extended a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant on 10.04.2009 out of the acquaintance in between them and the appellant executed a promissory note evidencing the hand loan and he promised to repay that amount along with interest @24% per annum and on the demand of respondent. The impugned cheque was drawn by appellant in favour of respondent towards repayment of the borrowed hand loan amount and that cheque upon presentation by respondent with his banker dishonoured for the reason "Insufficient Funds" in the account of appellant. Then the respondent caused a statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138(a) and (b) of N.I Act calling the appellant to clear the dishonoured cheque amount and alleged that the appellant wantonly refused to receive that notice and also that he failed to repay the dishonoured cheque amount and thereby he made himself liable for the prosecution of the offence of Section 138 3 N.I Act and the respondent having no other go took up the prosecution of appellant for that offence.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.41 of 2012 before the Court of the learned IV Additional Sessions (FTC) Judge, Warangal. By its judgment dated 07.11.2012, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same the present revision is filed.
4
6. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.
7. There is concurrent findings of both the Courts below with regard to the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has also not shown me anything, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2009 and almost 15 years have passed and during this period the revision 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 revision petitioner/accused, while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court against him.
5
8. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is reduced to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated: 13.03.2024 mmr/gvl