P.V.R. Kiran, Hyd vs Ravishankar, Hyd And Ano
2023 Latest Caselaw 2318 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.872 of 2015
ORDER:

1 This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and

401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 06.04.2015 passed in

Criminal Appeal No.302 of 2013 by the learned V Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,

confirming the judgment dated 29.04.2013 in C.C.No.191 of 2012

on the file of the Court of the IV Special Magistrate Court,

Kukatpally at Miyapur, wherein and whereby the petitioner was

found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.

Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of one year and also to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs towards

compensation to P.W.1 within six months.

2 The case of the complainant is that the complainant and the

petitioner are well acquainted with each other and that at the

request of the petitioner, the complainant gave loan of Rs.10.00

lakhs to the petitioner by selling his flat. The petitioner promised

to repay the same amount within six months and executed two

promissory notes each for Rs.5.00 lakhs towards discharge of his

liability. Since the petitioner failed to repay the amount, the

complainant presented the cheques into his bank which were

dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The complainant got

issued legal notice dated 01.12.2011 to the petitioner demanding

him to repay the amounts. Since the petitioner neither chose to

give reply nor to pay the amounts covered under the cheques, the

complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against

the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

3 During the trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1

and he also got examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9.

4 Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that the petitioner issued two blank cheques

and executed two promissory notes towards security to the father

of P.W.1 in connection with another transaction and subsequently

the said cheques and promissory notes were misused and no

consideration was passed under the cheques. It is his further

contention that P.W.1 admitted that he did not show the amount in

question in income tax returns which shows his incapacity to lend

such huge amount and hence the amount is not legally

recoverable. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.D.Thomas Vs.

P.S.Jaleel 1 and R.Chennakesava Rao vs. P.Laxmi Narasaiah 2

in support of his contentions.

5 Per contra, Sri V.Venkata Mayur, the learned counsel for the

complainant submitted that out of acquaintance only the

complainant lent the amount to the petitioner for his business

purpose and the petitioner executed Exs.P.1 and P.2 promissory

notes and subsequently issued Exs.P.3 and P.4 cheques in

discharge the said amount. When the cheques were dishonoured

on presentation, the complainant by following the due procedure

filed the complaint after issuance of legal notice.

6 The complainant discharged his onus by proving the

signatures of the petitioner on Exs.P1 to P.4 as contemplated

under Sections 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act. The evidence of

P.W.2 also corroborates the version of P.W.1, the complainant. The

petitioner did not dispute his signatures on the above documents.

The complainant also proved the service of notice validly on the

petitioner since Ex.P.7 notice as well as the address mentioned on

the promissory notes is one and the same. The complainant

established how he secured the amount by producing Ex.D.1

document, which shows that he sold the flat to one M.Bhujangarao

1 (2009) 14 SCC 398 2 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 631

for Rs.16,92,000/-. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumption

under Section 139 of the NI Act.

7 Therefore and upon perusal of the entire material available

on record, I am of the considered view that the complainant has

established the case beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner

failed to rebut the presumption available to him under law.

8 In the result, the criminal revision case is devoid of any merit

and is accordingly dismissed.

9 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal revision

case shall also stand dismissed.

------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 13.09.2023 Kvsn