Telangana High Court
N.Anjaiah, Medak Dt., vs S.Ravinder Rao, Rr.Dt And Anr, Rep Pp., on 15 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.307 of 2017
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the
Judgment dated 01.08.2012 passed in C.C.No.144 of 2012
on the file of the I Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Kukatpally (for short 'the trial Court') and the same is
confirmed by the Judgment dated 31.10.2016 passed in
Crl.A.P.No.372 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy
District (for short 'the appellate Court').
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused.
Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State and perused the record.
3. This Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on
merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in "Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh 1", wherein it was categorically held that the High
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution
simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
herein/accused is the family friend of respondent No.1
herein/complainant and out of the said acquaintance the
petitioner on 28.09.2005 requested respondent No.1 for
hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of his
agricultural and business needs and promised respondent
No.1 to repay the same within a short period and respondent
No.1 has advanced the said amount to the petitioner. On
repeated requests made by respondent No.1, the petitioner
had issued a cheque bearing No.998225, dated 20.06.2007
for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Podichanpally
Branch, Medak and requested respondent No.1 to present
the same on 24.07.2007 as he could not arrange the amount
in his bank account by 20.06.2007 assuring that the cheque
would be honoured. Respondent No.1 presented the cheque
on 24.07.2007 with his banker, i.e., Canara Bank, Balanagar
Branch, Hyderabad, but the same was returned to
respondent No.1 on 18.08.2007 by way of debit advise memo
by respondent No.1 bank. Thereafter, respondent No.1
issued legal notice dated 13.09.2007 calling upon the
accused to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the notice but the petitioner
having received the notice on 15.09.2007 neither replied the
notice nor repaid the amount. Hence respondent No.1
constrained to file the complaint.
5. Originally the case was filed before the IX Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kukatpally and the learned Magistrate took the
case on file and numbered as C.C.No.1753 of 2007 and
issued summons to the petitioner. Later, the case was
transferred to I Special Magistrate Court, Kukatpally and
renumbered as C.C.No.144 of 2012. After receipt of
summons, the petitioner appeared before the court and the
copies of the documents relied by respondent No.1 were
furnished to the petitioner and he was examined under
Section 251 Cr.P.C for which the petitioner pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Respondent No.1/complainant examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and also examined PW.2
in support of his case. The petitioner/accused examined
himself as DW.1 and DW.2 and 3 in support of his case and
got marked Exs.D1 to D4.
7. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the trial Court has passed the Judgment dated
01.08.2012 in C.C.No.144 of 2012 which reads as under:
"32. In the result, I find the accused is guilty of the
offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, the accused
is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence under
Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for
three months and also under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant in default
of suffer SI for three months."
8. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court,
the petitioner/accused has preferred Crl.A.P.No.372 of 2012
before the appellate Court, the appellate Court after
examining the material facts before it has passed the
following judgment:
"13. In the result, the appeal of the
appellant/convict/accused is dismissed by confirming the
judgment and sentence passed by the learned I Special
Magistrate, Kukatpally in C.C.No.144 of 2012 dated
01.08.2012 wherein the learned trial Judge found the
appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of
NI Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
three months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to
the complainant under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. However, the
default of sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months for non payment of compensation is set aside."
Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is
preferred.
9. The findings of both the Courts below with regard to
guilty of the petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused did not place anything before this
Court, to discredit the evidence. Therefore, there is no
interference warranted as far as payment of compensation is
concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be
mentioned that the offence took place long back and during
this period the petitioner/accused must have repented for
what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of
justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment to the period already undergone by the
petitioner/accused while maintaining the compensation
imposed by the trial Court. The said compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner/accused to
respondent No.1/complainant within a period of one year
from today.
10. Except the above modification, no further interference
of this Court is warranted with respect to the order passed
by the learned appellate Court. Accordingly, the present
criminal revision case is partly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dated: 15.02.2024
vsu
