Telangana High Court
G.R.Anand vs The State Of A.P. And Another on 16 April, 2024
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Revision Case No. 1472 OF 2009
Between:
G.R.Anand S/o. Rajeshwar Rao
... Appellant/
Accused
And
The State of A.P. rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another
... Respondent/
Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 16.04.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.R.C. No. 1472 OF 2009
% Dated 16.04.2024
# G.R.Anand S/o. Rajeshwar Rao ...Appellants/
Accused
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another
... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S.Syam Sunder
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for State
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1472 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner
aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.09.2009 in Crl.A.No.189
of 2009, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad, confirming the judgment passed by the XV
Additional Judge-Cum-XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad vide order dated 25.06.2009 in
C.C.No.442 of 2008.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State.
3. The revision petitioner/accused was convicted for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') by the trial Court. In an appeal
preferred by the appellant, the Sessions Court concurred
with the finding of the learned Magistrate and confirmed the
conviction. Aggrieved by the said findings of guilt, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. The case of the complainant/respondent is that an
amount of Rs.40,000/- was borrowed and for repayment of
the said amount Ex.P.1/cheque dated 08.06.2002 was
handed over to the complainant. On presentation, the said
cheque was returned unpaid for the reason of 'insufficient
funds'. Having issued legal notice on 12.11.2002, since
accused failed to make good amount covered by the cheque, a
complaint was filed.
5. The trial Court examined the complainant as P.W.1 and
on his behalf Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked.
6. Learned Magistrate found that the issuance of cheque
was not disputed. The Court further that there was
outstanding against the cheque in question and accordingly
convicted him.
7. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with the finding
of the learned Magistrate and confirmed the conviction. In
both the Courts below, the defense of the accused is that two
complaints were filed, one under Section 138 of N.I.Act and
the other under Section 420 of IPC. Learned Magistrate
having examined the witnesses in the case filed under
Section 420 of IPC, found the accused not guilty. For the
reason of recording acquittal under Section 420 of IPC, which
was not questioned before the Superior Court, the offence
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act also has to be dismissed,
according to the counsel for the petitioners.
8. The offence under Section 420 of IPC would be made
out only in the event of their being an intention to cheat from
the inception of the transaction. If it is proved on facts that
the accused had induced the complainant to part with any
money and pursuant to such receipt of money, the accused
had passed on the cheque deliberately having knowledge that
the cheque would be dishonored, the offence of cheating
would be made out. However, in case of prosecution under
Section 138 of N.I.Act, such intention of defrauding is not
relevant. In the event of finding that there is outstanding on
the cheque issued, the prosecution would succeed under
Section 138 of N.I.Act. The acquittal under Section 420 of
IPC has no bearing on the present facts of the case.
9. The issuance of cheque and the signature on the
cheque is not disputed.
10. I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Court
below regarding culpability of the accused for the offence
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
11. However, keeping n view that the transaction is of the
year, 2002 and nearly 20 years have passed, this Court
deems it appropriate to set aside the sentence of
imprisonment upholding the quantum of fine.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly
allowed setting aside the sentence of imprisonment,
upholding the quantum of fine. Miscellaneous applications
pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 16.04.2024
dv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1472 OF 2009
Dt. 16.04.2024
dv
