Telangana High Court

K. Padmaja Rani vs The State Of Telangana, on 29 November, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

                                        1
                                                                               Dr. GRR, J
                                                       crlrc_1162, 1163 and 1165 of 2018

                THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

     CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos. 1162, 1163 and 1165 of 2018



COMMON ORDER:

         These Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the petitioner-accused No.3

aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction recorded against her by the

trial court and the appellate court for the offences under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI" Act).


2.       C.C.Nos.482 and 486 of 2015 were tried by the Special Magistrate, Court

No.3, Kukatpally at Miyapur and in the said cases, the petitioner-A3 was

sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a

sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- jointly and severally along with A1 and A2 to the

complainant towards compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. in default

of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six

(06) months in each of the said cases and both the substantive sentences of

imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.          The petitioner-accused

preferred an appeal and the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at

Kukatpally also confirmed the conviction and sentence as passed by the trial

court.


3.       C.C.No.368 of 2013 was tried by the Special Magistrate, Court No.1,

Cyberabad at Kukatpally and the petitioner-accused No.3 was convicted for the
                                        2
                                                                               Dr. GRR, J
                                                       crlrc_1162, 1163 and 1165 of 2018

offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment

for two (02) years and directed to pay a compensation of Rs.4,61,17,430/- to the

complainant, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six (06) months. The

said conviction and sentence is also confirmed by the lower appellate court.


4.    Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned

counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the

petitioner was in custody for the past 47 months, she had already undergone the

substantive sentence of imprisonment passed by the courts below in C.C.No.482

of 2015 and C.C.No.486 of 2015. But, as the trial was conducted separately in

C.C.No.368 of 2013 by the Special Magistrate, Court No.1, Cyberabad at

Kukatpally, the learned Judge had not ordered to run the sentences concurrently

as such the petitioner was undergoing the sentence of imprisonment

consecutively and sought a direction from this Court to order the sentence in

C.C.No368 of 2013 also to be directed to run concurrently along with the other

cases in C.C.Nos.482 of 2015 and 486 of 2015.

6. He further contended that all the cases under Section 138 of the NI Act

arose out of a single transaction, but different complaints were lodged as nine

(09) different cheques were issued which resulted in separate cases filed by the

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_1162, 1163 and 1165 of 2018

complainant and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

V.K.Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another1 on the aspect that:

"the legal position favours exercise of discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction no matter different complaints in relation thereto may have been filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a loan to the creditor."

7. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant on the other hand

contended that the conduct of the party needed to be looked into. Earlier, this

Court passed a common order in I.A.No.1 of 2018 on 27.04.2018 in

Crl.R.C.Nos.1162, 1163 and 1165 of 2018, while suspending the sentence of

imprisonment imposed against the petitioner-A3. While considering the bail

application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the engagement of their

daughter was fixed on 28.04.2018, this Court directed to deposit 50% of the

compensation amount awarded in all the impugned calendar cases and suspended

the sentence of imprisonment for a period of three (03) months from 28.04.2018

to 27.07.2018. He further submitted that the husband of the petitioner, who was

shown as A2 filed an undertaking to pay the amount as agreed but he violated

the undertaking given to the court, as such contempt petitions were filed against

A2. No amount was deposited by the petitioner or A2, but they got their purpose

served and got them released on bail and performed the marriage of their

(2013) 7 SCC 211

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_1162, 1163 and 1165 of 2018

daughter successfully. Subsequently, A3 was also granted interim bail for a

period of thirteen (13) days on 18.06.2020 on the ground that her mother was

serious, but no single pie was paid by the petitioner or her husband till date and

opposed the submission of the petitioner to give a direction to run the sentences

concurrently.

8. The parties are herein referred as arrayed before the trial court.

9. Perused the record.

10. The record would disclose that the complainant was a company

incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in business as

exporters and importers of bulk drugs, drug intermediates, fine chemicals, etc.,

Accused No.1 was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and

accused Nos. 2 and 3 were the directors of A1 Company and were actively

involved in the day to day business affairs of the A1 Company. Upon the orders

placed by A1, the complainant supplied bulk drug raw material from time to time

to the accused on credit basis till November, 2012. The accused confirmed the

balance liability as Rs.4,30,58,715/- to the complainant as on 10.12.2012 and

issued nine (09) post-dated cheques with different dates in favour of the

complainant and assured that the cheques would be honoured on their

presentation on their respective due dates. The complainant by its letter dated

07.01.2013 informed the accused to make arrange the funds to honour the

cheques and thereafter deposited the cheques. But the same were dishonoured

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_1162, 1163 and 1165 of 2018

and were returned unpaid for the reason 'funds insufficient'. Then, the

complainant got issued a statutory legal notice dated 06.03.2013 to all the

accused by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due but the accused neither

complied the demand nor caused any reply. Hence, filed the complaint.

11. During the course of trial, the Managing Director of the complainant

company was examined as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 in his favour. The

accused had taken a defence that, he had given blank signed cheques and blank

signed letter heads to the complainant for their tax returns without any monetary

transaction, but no defence evidence was adduced.

12. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court, on considering the

evidence of PW1 that he and A2 were colleagues in M/s.Standard Organics

Private Limited earlier and they were family friends and subsequently came out

and established their respective companies and there was acquaintance between

both of them and as per the evidence of PW1 coupled with the documents

marked, it would establish that the accused failed to pay the due sum of

Rs.4,30,58,715/- to the complainant as on 10.12.2012 and the accused had issued

eight (08) post-dated cheques each for Rs.50,00,000/- for a sum of

Rs.4,00,00,000/- and 9th cheque bearing No.142615 dated 13.05.2013 for

Rs.30,58,715/- with different dates and the accused had taken a defence that the

complainant had not filed any invoice or delivery challans to show under which

the material was supplied, but in Ex.P3, he acknowledged the account credit

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_1162, 1163 and 1165 of 2018

balance due and failed to probablise his defence that the complainant obtained

blank signed cheques towards security, disbelieved the defence of the accused

and convicted A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners is now not seriously

challenging the orders of conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner.

His only request now is that, to direct the sentence of imprisonment awarded in

C.C.No.368 of 2013 also to be directed to run concurrently along with

imprisonment awarded in the other two (02) cases, as the petitioner-A3 was in

custody for the past 47 months.

14. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.K.Bansal v.

State of Haryana and Another (1 supra), while considering Section 427 of

Cr.P.C. which deals with situations where an offender who was already

undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, was sentenced on subsequent conviction

to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, it was held that:

"the court should exercise its discretion judicially and not mechanically in each case, having regard to the nature of offence and the particular fact situation. No straightjacket approach can be laid down where there was a single transaction constituting offences, even if different complaints were filed in relation thereto, sentences can be directed to run concurrently. However, only substantive sentences can be directed to run concurrently and sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation cannot be directed to run concurrently".