Telangana High Court
A. Dashmanth Reddy, vs Mekala Ramanjaneyulu, Another, on 15 July, 2022
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1494, 1725 & 1769 of 2008
COMMON ORDER:
Since the facts of the case, the issue involved and the parties
to the litigation are one and the same, these three Criminal Revision
Cases are taken up together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. Criminal Revision Case No.1494 of 2008 is filed by the
petitioner/complainant, challenging the judgment, dated 19.08.2008,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2007 by the I Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby, the appeal was
allowed by setting aside the judgment, dated 03.09.2007, passed in
C.C.No.160 of 2004 by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hyderabad, and the matter was remitted to the trial
Court with a direction to dispose of the subject CC afresh, after
giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence.
3. Criminal Revision Case No.1725 of 2008 is filed by the
petitioner/complainant, challenging the order, dated 19.08.2008,
passed in Crl.M.P.No.767 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2007
by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,
whereby, the said application was closed in view of the judgment
passed in Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2007 by the Court below.
Dr.SA, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.1494, 1725 & 1769 of 2008
2
4. Criminal Revision Case No.1769 of 2008 is filed by the
petitioner/complainant, challenging the order, dated 19.08.2008,
passed in Crl.M.P.No.722 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2007
by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,
whereby, the said application was allowed in view of the judgment
passed in Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2007 by the Court below.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
6. The respondent in these three Criminal Revision Cases/accused
was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 40 days. Challenging
the same, the accused filed subject Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2007
before the Court below along with two applications, i.e.,
Crl.M.P.No.767 of 2008 seeking permission to adduce additional
evidence by recalling the complainant for further cross-examination
and for further chief examination of the accused; and Crl.M.P.No.722
of 2008 to call upon the complainant to admit or deny the
genuineness of the documents filed along with the said application.
The Court below, while dealing with some questions of fact with
regard to Ex.P1-Pronote, dated 20.09.2002 and Ex.P2-cheque
bearing No.003387, dated 01.12.2003, held as follows:
Dr.SA, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.1494, 1725 & 1769 of 2008
"In view of the above discussion, it is very clear since the
appellant/accused discharge his initial burden by raising the probable
defence to disprove the existence of consideration and then, the
burden shifted on the respondent/complainant. But, the
respondent/complainant did not adduce satisfactory evidence to
discharge his burden and to establish the existence of valid
enforceable debt by way of satisfactory corroborative evidence.
Since the appellant/accused himself wanted to adduce rebuttal
evidence and filed application to permit him to adduce further
evidence to rebut the presumption of service of notice by showing
that the appellant/accused has no knowledge about such notice and
the said notice was not brought to his addresses and to establish that
the addresses mentioned on the cover was incorrect and the said
notice was never tendered and also to establish the fact that the
respondent/complainant is doing money lending business without
having any valid license or permit and wanted to show that the claim
is not enforceable claim. In the above all circumstances, the
judgment of the trial Court cannot be said to be sustainable under
law and liable to be set aside as the appellant/accused is entitled to
adduce additional evidence to rebut the presumption on valid service
of notice. So, the respondent/complainant is also entitled to adduce
further evidence to discharge his burden to establish that there is
legally enforceable debt, since the appellant/accused initially
discharged his burden, as the appellant/accused raises probable
defence to disprove the existence of consideration under Ex.P1
promissory note and there is no existence of valid enforceable debt."
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below
arrived at a just conclusion in passing the impugned judgment, dated
19.08.2008. Further, if the subject CC No.160 of 2004 is restored to
the file of the trial Court and disposed of after affording opportunity
to both the parties on record, it would not cause any prejudice or
injustice to the revision petitioner/complainant. There is no
perversity or illegality in the judgment under challenge. Since the
Court below was pleased to direct the trial Court to take evidence of
both sides and dispose of the subject CC in accordance with law and
in view of the fact that the subject CC is of the year 2004, the trial
Court is directed to dispose of the subject CC, as expeditiously as
Dr.SA, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.1494, 1725 & 1769 of 2008
possible, at any rate not later than three (3) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this common order.
8. With the above observations/directions, Crl.R.C.No.1494 of
2008 is disposed of.
9. In view of the passing of the above order in Crl.R.C.No.1494 of
2008, the cause in Crl.R.C.Nos.1725 and 1769 of 2008 do not
survive for adjudication. With the said observation, Crl.R.C.Nos.1725
and 1769 of 2008 are disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these three Criminal
Revision Cases, shall stand closed.
___________________
Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
15th July, 2022
Bvv
