M.K. Sharfuddin, And Another, vs Dayala Sriramulu And Another,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2656 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1161 OF 2012
ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners/accused

under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short

'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2010

dated 16.07.2012 passed by the learned IX Additional District and

Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar wherein the

conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months and to

pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in default of payment of fine

amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, awarded to the

petitioners vide judgment dated 29.05.2010 in CC No.684 of 2009 on

the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB

Nagar, Ranga Reddy District was confirmed.

2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel representing

on behalf of Ms.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing

learned Public Prosecutor for State/2nd respondent. None appeared for

the 1st respondent.

3. The brief facts that lead to registration of CC No.684 of

2009 are that the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent are the

colleagues in APSRTC and due to the said acquaintance, the 1st

petitioner approached and obtained a hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from

the 1st respondent agreeing to repay the same within six months and

executed a promissory note under Ex.P1 but failed to repay the same

and on persistent demands, he issued cheque bearing No.984721 for

an amount of Rs.20,000/- and the 2nd petitioner i.e. the wife of 1st

petitioner issued another cheque bearing No.984723 for Rs.30,000/-

both dated 10.07.2006 and drawn on State Bank of India, Charminar

Branch, Hyderabad towards discharge of the said legally enforceable

debt. However, on presentation of the same, both the cheques under

Exs.P2 and P3 were dishonoured by the bank vide return memo dated

12.07.2006 under Ex.P4 with the endorsement "insufficient funds".

Accordingly, the 1st respondent got issued legal notice dated

10.08.2006 covered under original of Ex.P5. Since the petitioners did

not repay the amount or issued reply, the 1st respondent filed a

complaint and the criminal law was set in motion.

4. The learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at

LB Nagar, upon consideration of entire evidence on record in the form

of PW.1, DWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P8 and Ex.D1 found the

petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act

and convicted them as stated supra. The said findings were confirmed

by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga

Reddy District at LB Nagar.

5. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the

petitioners filed the present criminal revision case contending that both

the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective

and failed to see that there are no ingredients to attract the offence

under Section 138 of NI Act. On the other hand, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor contended that the findings of both the Courts below

are well reasoned and there is no need to interfere with the same.

6. The petitioners denied to have issued the subject cheques

and on the other hand their defence before the trial Court was that by

taking advantage of his acquaintance with the 1st petitioner, the 1st

respondent stolen the cheques and by forging their signatures, they

presented the cheques and upon their dishonour, the present criminal

case was filed. The said version appears to be improbable as forging

the signatures of two persons on stolen cheques is a very hard task and

that the bank has returned those cheques for the reason of insufficient

funds but not on the ground of not tallying the signatures. Further,

the petitioner did not make any efforts to send the disputed signatures

on the cheques and promissory note to the expert. When the

signatures on the cheques and promissory note are disputed by the

party to get shelter from the punishment for dishonour of the said

instruments, a prudent person can resort to take steps to prove his

innocence by sending those disputed cheques for expert's opinion but

for the reasons best known to the petitioners, they did not take such

recourse.

7. It is evident from the record that during the course of

proceedings before the trial Court, the petitioners were asked to

compare their signatures appearing on Exs.P1 to P3 with their admitted

signatures in Memo of Appearance, filed on their behalf. The 1st

petitioner denied similarity between them but the 2nd petitioner

admitted them as similar. So far as service of notices is concerned, the

endorsement made on Ex.P8 unserved postal covers shows as

"addressee left" and "addressee out of station" which amounts to

service of notice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot deny knowledge of

the matter contained in the legal notice.

8. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, it

can be stated that the petitioners having issued cheques for discharge

of their legally enforceable debt to the 1st respondent, failed to honour

the same and on their dishonour, even they failed to repay the same

within the stipulated period or gave reply and hence, the 1st respondent

has rightly initiated the criminal proceedings and by adducing cogent,

convincing and reliable evidence, proved the guilt of the petitioners. On

the other hand, the petitioners except making several contentions, they

failed to substantiate the same by adducing evidence. Considering all

these facts, both the Courts below have rightly found the petitioners

guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The said

findings are well reasoned findings and they cannot be interfered with

by this Court.

9. So far as the sentence of imprisonment, imposed against

the petitioners is concerned, from the dishonour of cheques and

consequent initiation of proceedings the petitioners have been roaming

around the Courts for defending themselves by facing mental agony

and trauma. This itself is a sufficient ground to take a lenient view in

so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by

the Courts below is concerned. Therefore, the sentence of rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the petitioners is

hereby reduced to that of the period of imprisonment which they have

already undergone directing them to jointly and severally pay a

compensation amount equivalent to double the cheques' amount to the

1st respondent/de-facto complainant while upholding the fine amount

imposed by the trial Court. In default of payment of compensation

amount, the petitioners shall undergo the period of imprisonment

imposed by the Courts below.

10. Except the above modification in respect of period of

sentence of rigorous imprisonment, this criminal revision case in all

other aspects is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending,

shall stand dismissed.

____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated : 23-09-2023 abb