Ramesh Kumar Dhir, vs The State Of A.P.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 48 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.229 OF 2007


ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the

petitioner against the judgment dated 02.02.2007 in Crl.A.No.242

of 2006 passed by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused

the record.

3. The petitioner is questioning the correctness of the

concurrent findings of guilt for the offence under Section 138 of

N.I.Act. The case of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that hand

loan was given for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.05.2002 and

thereafter cheque in question was issued and also promissory note

was executed.

4. The trial Court having examined witnesses and also marking

Exhibits found that cheque was issued towards legally enforceable

debt and accordingly sentenced the petitioner for one year and to

pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In Crl.A.No.242 of 2006 filed 2 KS,J Crlrc.No.229 of 2007

against the conviction in C.C.No.95 of 2003, the III Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, concurred with findings

of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

Both the Courts did not find favour with the defence of the

petitioner that blank cheques and pro-notes were misused by the

petitioner. In the event of admitting the signatures on the cheque,

the burden shifts on to the accused to prove his defence and

discharge his burden. I find no infirmity in the findings of learned

III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabd, in C.C.No.95 of

2003 and also the findings of the learned III Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.242 of 2006.

5. However, the transactions are of the year 2002 and 20 years

are lapsed. None appears for the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel

for the petitioner pleads to set aside the sentence of imprisonment

since the petitioner by now would be aged more than 70 years.

6. In the peculiar facts of the present case and keeping in view,

the age of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to set

aside the sentence of imprisonment of one (01) year. However, the

compensation amount is increased to Rs.4,00,000/-. In the event 3 KS,J Crlrc.No.229 of 2007

of the petitioner failing to pay the said compensation within a

period of three (03) months from the date of direction from

Magistrate Court or receipt of this order, the petitioner shall

undergo imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. The

concerned learned Magistrate is directed to cause appearance of

the petitioner and accordingly follow the directions of this Court in

ensuring payment of compensation to the 2nd respondent failing

which send the petitioner to prison in accordance with the

directions.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is Partly Allowed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

                                                _______________
                                                  K.SURENDER, J
04.01.2023
Gms
                           4                   KS,J
                                      Crlrc.No.229 of 2007

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.229 OF 2007

Date: 04.01.2023

Gms