Telangana High Court
Smt P.Swarna Latha vs Smt Chandrakala And Another on 18 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.336 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.281 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 appellant Court') confirming the Judgment dated 15.06.2011 passed in C.C.No.1271 of 2008 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 the complainant and the accused hail from the same locality. They are well 2 acquainted with each other. The allegation against the accused is that she borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 01.11.2015 and also another sum of Rs.30,000/- on 01.12.2005 and also another sum of Rs.25,000/- on 15.12.2007. Thus, the complainant had given the total amount of Rs.85,000/- to the accused and the accused having received Rs.85,000/- executed three promissory notes in favour of the complainant with a promise that she will repay the said amount on or before 28.03.2008. The further allegation is that the accused did not repay the amount as promised on or before 28.03.2008. Therefore, the complainant started demanding the accused to repay the amount of Rs.85,000/- borrowed by the accused. The accused issued a cheque bearing No.674134, dated 11.09.2008 for Rs.15,000/- and another cheque bearing No.657478, dated 18.09.2008 for Rs.20,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Mylargadda branch. The complainant presented the said cheques before the said bank on 04.10.2008 and the cheques were dishonored by the bank and returned back with an endorsement "Funds 3 Insufficient". The complainant has informed this fact to the accused. Subsequently the complainant got issued a legal notice on 13.10.2008 demanding the accused to repay the amount within 15 days after receiving the notice. The accused received the notice on 15.10.2008. In spite of receiving notice, she did not repay the amount of Rs.35,000/. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.
4. To bring the guilt of the accused the complainant hereby examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has passed the judgment in C.C.No.1271 of 2008, 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.70,000/- which is the double amount of the cheques and out of which the complainant is hereby awarded the amount 4 of Rs.50,000/- 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.281 of 2011 before the appellate Court, the appellate Court upon considering the material facts before it has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.1271 of 2008. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case has been preferred.
7. Heard Sri M.Anand Kumar, learned cousel 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 appellate Court erred in confirming the judgment of the trial Court without properly appreciating the material on record. Hence, seeks to allow this criminal revision case by setting aside the judgment dated 15.06.2011 passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.1271 of 2008 which was confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.281 of 2011 dated 04.02.2013.
5
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted that upon careful examination of the material facts before it, both the trial Court and appellate Court has rightly passed the judgments. Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Hence seeks to dismiss this criminal revision case.
10. Recording the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the view that since this matter is pending from quite long time as the petitioner might have undergone mental agony 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 set off the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner/accused. However, the fine amount of Rs.70,000/- is reduced to Rs.55,000/-. Out of which, Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner/accused to respondent No.1/complainant within a period of three months from today.
6
11. Except the above modification, no further interference of this Court is warranted with respect to the judgment 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