Telangana High Court
Smt P.Swarna Latha vs Smt G.Annapurna And Another on 18 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.335 of 2013
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 04.02.2013 passed in Crl.A.No.280 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad (for short 'the appellate Court') confirming the Judgment dated 15.06.2011 passed in C.C.No.185 of 2009 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad (for short 'the trial Court').
2. The petitioner herein is accused and respondent No.1 herein is complainant before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience hereinafter parties are referred to as the complainant and the accused.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a private complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused alleging 2 that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.87,000/- on 29.06.2008 with a promise that she will repay the said amount within two months and executed an acknowledgment on non-judicial stamp paper worth of Rs.20/- undertaking that she would repay the said amount on 28.08.2008, but she did not repay the amount to the complainant as she promised. The accused said to have issued a cheque bearing No.683258, dated 03.10.2008 in respect of the said amount of Rs.87,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Mylargadda, Secunderabad, for the purpose of discharging the above said legally enforceable debt and subsequently when the complainant presented the cheque in the concerned bank on 10.11.2008 it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The further allegation is that as the cheque was dishonoured the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently the complainant got issued a legal notice on 13.11.2008 as required under Section 138 of NI Act demanding the accused to repay the said amount and the accused received the said 3 notices on 19.11.2008 and in spite of receipt of legal notices he did not come forward to repay the amount borrowed by her. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.7 and material object M.O.1-C.D was also marked.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has passed the judgment in C.C.No.185 of 2009, the relevant portion is as under:
"25. In the result, the accused is found guilty and she is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused is sentenced to undergo the simple imprisonment for a period of one year and apart from simple imprisonment of one year that she is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,74,000/- which is the doubt amount of the cheque and out of which the complainant is hereby awarded the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards her compensation as contemplated under Section 357 of Cr.P.C."
6. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the petitioner/accused preferred Crl.A.No.280 of 2011 before the appellate Court, the appellate Court upon considering 4 the material facts before it has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.185 of 2009. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case has been preferred.
7. Sri M.Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and perused the record.
8. Sri M. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has failed to confirm the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P7 and also MO.1-CD and erred in confirming the judgment of the trial Court even though there was enough material on record to upset the judgment of the trial Court and also failed to consider the cross examination of PW.1 and the favourable points scored by the defence in the cross examination of PW.1 including the admission of PW.1 that she was earning an amount of Rs.6000/- by doing tailor work and that she had no capacity to lend the cheque amount. Hence, seeks to allow this criminal revision case by setting aside judgment dated 5 04.02.2013 passed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.280 of 2011.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted that the appellate Court after careful examination has rightly allowed Crl.A.No.280 of 2011by confirming the judgment dated 15.06.2011 passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.185 of 2009. Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present criminal revision case.
10. Recording the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, since this matter is pending from quite long time, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner/accused might have undergone physical incorporation and mental agony in roaming around the Courts i.e., from trial Court to appellate Court; from appellate Court to High Court. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner/accused and the 6 fine amount is reduced from Rs.1,74,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/-. Out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner/accused to respondent No.1/complainant within a period of three months from today.
11. 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: 18.03.2024 vsu