Telangana High Court
Sri Tallam Balaji vs M/S. Godavari Fertilizers And ... on 15 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1767 OF 2008
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the
judgment dated 27.11.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2008
on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge
for the trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII Additional MSJ
Court Red Hills, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in
confirming the judgment dated 06.06.2008 in C.C.No.1143 of
2004 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, at Secunderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. Anand, learned counsel representing
Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent No.2 State. No representation on behalf of
respondent No.1. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Vasavi Transport
Company/accused No.1 was the partnership firm and accused
Nos.2 and 3 were the active partners of the said firm. Accused
No.1 was entrusted with the responsibility of stocking and storing
the products of respondent No.1 company/complainant at
Cuddapah with a condition that accused No.1 firm shall not
deliver and release the stocks without any written order or
authorization to anyone. On 25.08.2003 a surprise check of
physical stock was made at the go down of accused No.1 firm by
the concerned authorities and it was found that there was a
shortage of stock worth Rs.1,35,14,730/-. Accused No.2 owned
the liability of shortage and the accused Nos.2 and 3 together
agreed to make good all the shortage.
4. Pursuant thereto, an agreement-cum-indemnity bond was
executed by accused Nos.2 and 3 being the partners of accused
No.1 firm. Thereafter, five cheques were issued by accused No.1
firm pertaining to different dates, drawn by accused No.2, who
was the authorized signatory of the firm. Out of those cheques,
the impugned cheque dated 09.01.2004 for an amount of
Rs.30,14,730/-, when presented for realization with the banker,
it was dishonoured for the reason "insufficient funds". The
complainant issued a legal notice to accused Nos.1 to 3 but there
was no response. Thus, accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act").
5. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found accused
No.1 firm and accused No.3 guilty of the alleged offence and
imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- against accused No.1 firm, which was
payable by accused No.3. Further, accused No.3 was sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of one month. The total fine amount imposed against
accused Nos.1 and 3 was Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved thereby,
accused No.3 preferred an appeal.
6. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra dismissed
the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by
the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide
judgment dated 21.02.2011 in C.C.No.156 of 2005, the learned II
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, found
accused No.2 not guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections.406, 407, 409 and 420 of IPC and thereby acquitted
him.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the
trial Court as well as the appellate Court concurrently found the
petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section.138 of
NI Act. Learned counsel relied upon the order dated 18.04.2017
passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.1708 & 1709 of 2016
in/and Crl.R.C.No.2887 of 2015, wherein and whereby, this
Court upon taking into consideration the decisions passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed
Babalal 1, R. Vijayan Vs. Baby 2, S.R. Sunil & Company Vs. D.
Srinivasavaradan 3, Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay
D. Salvi 4 and Somnath Sarka Vs. Utpal Basu Mallick 5, wherein
it was held that, the object of incorporating the penal provisions
under Sections 138 to 142 of the NI Act is not only to provide a
strong criminal remedy to deter the high incidence of dishonour
of cheques but a remedy of punitive nature and observed that
where there is a conviction, there should be a consequential levy
of fine amount sufficient to cover the cheque amount along with
simple interest thereon at a fixed rate of 9% per annum and held
that the interest should be followed by an award of such sum as
compensation from the fine amount. However, to meet the ends
of justice, this Court modified the sentence of six months of
simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, to imprisonment
2010 (5) SCC 663
(2012) 1 SCC 260
(2014) 16 SCC 32
(2015) 9 SCC 622
2013 (16) SCC 465
till rising of the day by giving set off to the period undergone if
any and fine of Rs.10,00,000/- of which Rs.50,000/- would go to
the State and Rs.9,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant
which includes Rs.10,000/- fine if paid to adjust and out of it in
compensation received by complainant, for the balance to pay or
deposit within one month from that day, failing which, the
accused was to suffer the default sentence of six months simple
imprisonment for the lower Court to levy under Section 421 of
Cr.P.C. and enforce it. Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate
orders relying upon the said order.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same and
contended that respondent No.1 underwent severe mental agony
by roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.
He submitted that both the Courts upon appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence rightly passed their respective
judgments. But, as the matter is pending from the year 2008, he
seeks to pass appropriate orders.
10. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 28.11.2008 suspended the sentence of imprisonment
alone imposed against the petitioner and enlarged him on bail on
his executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties
of a like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon perusing the order dated 18.04.2017 passed
by this Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.1708 & 1709 of 2016 in/and
Crl.R.C.No.2887 of 2015, this Court deems it appropriate to
direct the petitioner/accused No.3 to deposit an amount of
Rs.31,00,000/- to the credit of the learned X Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad within a period of one
year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, while
reducing the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the
period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
12. In default of payment of the said amount, the impugned
judgment dated 27.11.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2008
on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge
for the trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII Additional MSJ
Court Red Hills, Hyderabad stands good in all respects.
13. Upon depositing the said amount, respondent No.1
company/complainant is granted liberty to withdraw the same
with immediate effect.
14. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case stands
disposed of.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 15.12.2023
ESP
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1767 OF 2008
Dated: 15.02.2024
ESP
