Pinjerla Venkateswara Rao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 902 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1652 OF 2007

ORDER:

Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Anantapur in Crl.A.No.63 of 2006, dated 17.09.2007

the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case.

2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :

The Complainant is doing business in silk sarees at

Dharmavaram Town and the petitioner/accused is also doing the same

business at Rajahmundry. During the course of business, the petitioner

purchased sarees from the complainant on credit basis and became

indebted to the complainant. In discharge of the said debt, the accused

issued a cheque bearing No.313398, dated 13.4.2002 for Rs.10,000/-

drawn in favour of the Union Bank of India, Rajahmundry. When the

complainant presented the said cheque into his bank i.e., Karur Vysya

Bank at Dharmavaram for encashment, the same was returned with an

endorsement "Funds insufficient" on 25.07.2002. Having received the

information from the bank, the petitioner got issued legal notice to the

petitioner/accused and thereafter, filed a private complaint against him

for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for

short '138 NI Act'). The case was numbered as C.C.No.462 of 2002 on the

file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dharmavaram.

3. During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as

P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 on his behalf. No oral and documentary

evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. After closure of the

complainant's evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., which was denied by him.

4. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Judge convicted

the accused under Section 138 NI Act, vide judgment dated 07.08.2006

and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one year and

also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- payable by the

petitioner/accused to the complainant.

5. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the

petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2006 on the file of

the Sessions Judge, Ananthapur. After considering the material on

record, the learned Sessions judge dismissed the appeal, vide Judgment

dated 17.09.2007 confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial

Court.

6. Heard Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial

Judge has already awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and seeks to

take a lenient view in awarding the sentence of imprisonment,

particularly as the offence took place in the year 2002 and also the

cheque amount is only Rs.10,000/-.

8. As seen from the record, the amount covered by the cheque is only

Rs.10,000/-and the sentence of imprisonment imposed by both the

Courts below i.e., Rigorous imprisonment for one year is very harsh. As

such, both the Courts below ought to have been liberal in awarding the

sentence of imprisonment. Moreover, the learned trial Judge has already

awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- i.e., cheque amount payable by

the petitioner/accused to the complainant. Therefore, taking into

consideration of all the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to

set aside the sentence of imprisonment, while maintaining the

compensation payable to the complainant.

9. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in

part, setting aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by both the

Courts below, while maintaining the compensation of Rs.10,000/-

payable to the complainant by the petitioner/accused.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

_______________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J 18th February,2022.

RPD.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1652 OF 2007

Dated : 18-02-2022

RPD