N.Naveen, Hyd vs P.P., Hyd Ano
2021 Latest Caselaw 2960 Tel

      THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1168 of 2016

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401

of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/complainant, challenging

the judgment, dated 16.12.2015, passed in Criminal Appeal

No.186 of 2015, by the Special Judge for Economic Offences-

cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,

whereby, the order, dated 29.01.2015, passed in C.C.No.28 of

2014 by the III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, acquitting the

respondent No.2 herein/accused of the offence punishable

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for

short, 'N.I.Act'), was confirmed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/

complainant, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing

for respondent No.1-State and perused the record. There is

no representation for the unofficial respondent No.2/accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant

would submit that the statutory legal notice issued to the

respondent No.2/accused is valid and is in consonance with

the provisions of N.I.Act. Further, non-filing of income tax

returns of petitioner/complainant would not defeat his case.

Respondent No.2/accused had not disputed the signature on

the subject cheque. There is ample record to establish

payment of Rs.3,40,028/- by way of subject cheque, dated

10.10.2013, to the respondent No.2/accused for his business

needs. In spite of the same, the trial Court erroneously

acquitted the respondent No.2/accused, which was also

confirmed by the lower appellate Court and ultimately prayed

to set aside the impugned judgment and remit back the

matter the lower appellate Court for de novo consideration,

after affording opportunity to the petitioner/complainant.

4. The material placed on record reveals that the lower

appellate Court had examined the subject dispute in detail.

The petitioner/complainant had not filed a single document to

show that an amount of Rs.3,44,000/- was paid to respondent

No.2/accused on 09.10.2013 towards hand loan to meet his

business needs. Even the petitioner/complainant did not file

his books of account in support of his case. Further, the

petitioner/complainant did not file his income tax returns to

substantiate his case. When a huge amount of Rs.3,44,000/-

is alleged to have been lent to respondent No.2/accused, the

petitioner/complainant ought to have filed some documentary

evidence to substantiate the same. Further, the

petitioner/complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 in the

subject case, categorically admitted in his cross-examination

that he has not obtained any receipt or promissory note from

the respondent No.2/accused for the amount lent to him. The

lower appellate Court rightly observed that no prudent man

would believe that a huge amount of Rs.3,44,000/- would be

arranged to the respondent No.2/accused without obtaining

any documentary proof. Though bank statement of the

petitioner/complainant produced by him on 28.01.2015 before

the trial Court shows an entry of withdrawal of Rs.3,40,028/-

from his account on 10.10.2013 by way of cheque, the said

transaction cannot be correlated with the subject dispute,

since the alleged date of advancing hand loan to the

respondent No.2/accused was 09.10.2013 and the date of

withdrawal of amount was on 10.10.2013. Both the Courts

below have examined all the contentions raised on behalf of

the petitioner/complainant and rightly negated his claim.

5. Here, it is apt to mention here the object of the

Revisional jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or an error

of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and

it may not be appropriate for the Court to scrutinize the

orders, which, on the face of them, bear a token of careful

consideration and appear to be in accordance with law.

Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions

under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance

with the provisions of law, the finding recorded are based on

no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion

is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Another well accepted

norm is that the Revisional jurisdiction of the higher Court is

very limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner.

Revisional Court has to confine itself to the legality and

propriety of the findings of the subordinate Court and as to

whether the subordinate Court acted within its jurisdiction. A

Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of

facts recorded by the learned Judge and impose and substitute

its own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C., confer only

limited power on the Revisional Court to the extent of

satisfying about the legality, propriety or regularity of the

proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like

appellate Court for other purposes including the recording of

new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence. None of

the considerations made above do exist in favour of the

revision petitioner to vary the decisions reached by the Courts

below. Furthermore, in the instant case, the impugned

judgment does not suffer from illegality, impropriety or

irregularity, warranting interference under Sections 397 & 401

of Cr.P.C. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is

liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

Revision Case shall stand closed.

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 25th October, 2021 Bvv