Telangana High Court
G.Madhusudan Rao vs Sri V.Jagan Mohan Rao And The State Of ... on 27 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.11 OF 2011
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment 30.09.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2009 on the file of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 06.07.2009 in C.C.No.67 of 2009 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge-cum-XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. A. Bikshapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 State. No representation on behalf of unofficial respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused obtained loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from respondent No.1/ complainant during second week of May, 2006 promising to repay the same, within short time. Thereafter he failed to repay the same. The accused issued cheque dated 13.04.2007 towards discharge of the amount due. On presentation the said cheque was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Later, the 2 complainant issued legal notice dated 15.05.2007 to the accused. But the accused failed to pay the amount due within the stipulated time. Hence, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the NI Act").
4. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
5. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject cheque, which was dishonoured does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and hence, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He further stated that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, without appreciating the material available on record in proper perspective, erroneously passed their respective judgments by 3 holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 Sarkar 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 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. 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 4 However, to meet the ends of justice, this Court 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 as imposed by the lower Court. Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders relying upon the said order.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 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 submitted that the appellate Court upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence rightly passed the impugned judgment and sought to dismiss the Revision.
9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined respondent No.1 as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the defence, the petitioner was examined as DW1 and no 5 document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, the trial Court and the appellate Court observed that the complainant has made out all the ingredients which are required so as to constitute the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. But, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner failed to raise such an objection before the trial Court. This Court vide order dated 05.01.2011 suspended the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the appellate Court and released him on bail on executing personal bond by him for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned counsel, on 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 and considering the fact that the petitioner underwent mental agony roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, this Court deems it 6 appropriate to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
12. The petitioner is further directed to deposit compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within a period of six months from today. On such deposit, respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,000/- with immediate effect. An amount of Rs.5,000/- shall remain with the State.
13. If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
14. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. 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: 27.03.2024 ESP