Dandapadu Jermaiah, vs State Another,
2022 Latest Caselaw 657 Tel

               HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                       CRL.R.C.No.1200 of 2005

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of

the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SCs &STs (POA)

Act-cum-VI-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad,

passed in Crl.A.No.25 of 2005, dated 25.07.2005, confirming the

conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three

months and a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a

period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposed against the revision

petitioner/accused by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate,

Secunderabad, in C.C.No.1034 of 2003 dated 31.12.2004.

Brief facts of the case of the 2nd respondent/complainant are that

the revision petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.92,000/-

from him on 15.03.2002 on execution of a bond and later issued a

cheque bearing No.500015013 for Rs.1,05,000/- dated 24.04.2003 drawn

on Canara Bank, Sainikpuri Branch, Secunderabad, in discharge of the

said legally enforceable liability and when the said cheque was

presented for realization, the same was returned with an endorsement

'insufficient funds" in the account of the revision petitioner/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 2nd

respondent/complainant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were

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

petitioner/accused, D.W.1 was 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 VI-Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, dismissed the said appeal

confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the

revision petitioner/accused preferred this criminal revision.

Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and

perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the material available on record would show that

both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the oral and

documentary evidence adduced by the 2nd respondent/complainant

and found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

The evidence of the 2nd respondent/complainant, who was

examined as P.W.1, that the revision petitioner/accused issued the

cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt stands unshaken and,

therefore, his evidence is not in any way be discredited. Further, the

revision petitioner/accused did not come forward to deny the

borrowal or execution of Ex.P1-Bond or contend to have issued the

blank cheque. However, he examined his wife as D.W.1 and her

evidence is filled with absurdity and is not convincing. Thus, it is

established that the revision petitioner/accused borrowed the amount

in question from the 2nd respondent/complainant and issued Ex.P2-

cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Therefore, while

exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not to

re-appreciate the evidence.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned

Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and having perused the

impugned judgments, this Court is of the view that the Courts below

have rightly applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the

revision petitioner/accused was guilty of the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the N.I. of the Act. The learned Counsel for the revision

petitioner/accused has also not shown any ground, which would

discredit the evidence on record. Hence, the conviction passed by the

trial Court as well as the appellate Court against the revision

petitioner/accused is upheld.

However, having considered the submission of the learned

Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the offence took place

in the year 2003 and almost 19 years have passed and that there is no

previous criminal record against the revision petitioner/accused, I

deem it appropriate to modify the sentence of imprisonment of three

months into sentence of fine in addition to the fine already imposed

against him.

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

sentence of simple imprisonment of three months imposed by the

Courts below against the revision petitioner/accused is modified into

sentence of fine of Rs.20,000/- in addition to the fine of Rs.2,000/-

already imposed against him for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the N.I. Act and the same shall be paid to the 2nd

respondent/complainant (P.W.1) towards compensation within a

period of two months from today. In default of payment of fine, the

revision petitioner/accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a

period of three months.

With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment,

the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

15.02.2022 Gsn.