Syed Ahmed Ali, vs Md. Afzal Ali, State Of Ap Rep By Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 420 Tel

               HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                       CRL.R.C.No.992 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of

the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SC/ST (POA)

Act-cum-V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at

Sangareddy, passed in Crl.A.No.166 of 2004, dated 07.06.2006,

confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a

period of One year and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple

imprisonment for a period of five months, for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposed against

the revision petitioner/accused by the learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, C.C.No.860 of 2003 dated

15.12.2004.

Brief facts of the case of the 1st respondent/complainant are that

the revision petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-

from him, on 29.10.2002, for his family necessities and executed two

promissory notes, each for Rs.1,25,000/-in favour of the complainant

and thereafter he issued a cheque bearing No.704852 for an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- on 01.04.2003 drawn on ICICI Bank of Hyderabad,

towards payment of the amount due to the complainant and when the

said cheque was presented for realization, the same was returned with

an endorsement 'insufficient funds" in the account of the drawer

(accused). Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for

under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act, the complainant filed a

private complaint and the same was taken on file by the trial Court.

During the course of trial, on behalf of the 1st respondent-

complainant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were

marked to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the revision

petitioner/accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and no document was

marked.

On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary,

the trial Court found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly

convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/accused

against the said conviction and sentence, the learned V-Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dismissed the said

appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the

same, the revision petitioner/accused preferred this criminal revision.

Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused,

learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent/State and perused

the material available on record.

As seen from the evidence of the 1st respondent/complainant,

who was examined as P.W.1, it is crystal clear that on 29.10.2002, he

gave Rs.2,50,000/- to the revision Petitioner/accused (D.W.1) in the

presence of one Omar Baba and after receipt of the amount, the

revision petitioner/accused executed two promissory notes (Exs.P1

and P2) each for Rs.1,25,000/- with a promise to repay the same within

three months and thereafter, on demand, the revision

petitioner/accused issued Ex.P3-Cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- on

01.04.2003 and when the said cheque was presented for realization, the

same was returned from the bank with an endorsement (Ex.P4) as

'insufficient funds' in the account of the revision petitioner/accused.

From the evidence of the Bank Manager (P.W.2), it is clear that the

cheque was returned due to insufficient funds. Therefore, it is evident

that though there was no amount in his account, the revision

petitioner/accused has issued Ex.P3-Cheque in favour of the 1st

respondent/complainant.

The revision petitioner/accused, who was examined as D.W.1,

has admitted in his cross-examination that without any coercion or

force, he had signed on the two promissory notes for Rs.1,25,000/-

each. Therefore, it is clear from his evidence that he had borrowed an

amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the 1st respondent/complainant and that

he has issued the cheque in favour of the 1st respondent/complainant

without having sufficient funds in his account and as such the cheque

was returned from the bank due to insufficient funds.

On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the

view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given

sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision

petitioner/accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as

conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it

may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2002 and

almost 21 years have passed and it is stated that there is no previous

criminal record against the revision petitioner/accused. Considering

these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of

imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against

him.

In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, the

sentence of simple imprisonment of One year imposed by the Courts

below is reduced to three months, while maintaining the sentence of

fine imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment,

the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

03.02.2022 Gsn.