Telangana High Court
Veeravelli Raghava Chary vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp And ... on 15 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.895 of 2012
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated
18.04.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.175 of 2011 on the file of the
I Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam .
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
Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution
simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.2008, the
petitioner approached respondent No.2 and borrowed an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to meet his personal necessities
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
and after receiving the amount the petitioner executed a
pronote in favour of respondent No.2 on the same day i.e.,
21.07.2008 and agreed to repay the same along with interest
at the rate of 24 % per annum and respondent No.2 made
many demands to repay the said amount with interest, but
the petitioner failed to repay the same on one pretext or
another . Finally the petitioner issued a cheque bearing
No.692187, dated 26.12.2008 drawn on Indian Overseas
Bank, Khammam Branch for Rs.75,000/- towards part
satisfaction of the above debt and the said cheque was
presented in Andhra Bank, Kaviraj Nagar Branch,
Khammam on 26.12.2008 and it was returned with an
endorsement "funds insufficient" on 27.12.2008. Thereafter
a legal notice was issued on 31.12.2008 demanding the
petitioner for repayment of the amount within 15 days from
the date of receipt of the notice and notice was served to the
petitioner on 03.01.2009, but in spite of the same, he did not
choose to make any payment and did not given any reply to
the notice. Hence respondent No.2 constrained to file the
complaint.
5. The learned trial Court furnished the case documents
to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
On appearance of the petitioner, he was examined under
Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act'), for which he
denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
6. On trial, for respondent No.2/complainant PWs.1 to 3
were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of
the petitioner/accused DWs.1 and 2 were examined and got
marked Ex.D1.
7. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the trial Court has passed the Judgment dated
01.12.2011 in C.C.No.258 of 2009 which reads as under:
"In the result, the Court found accused guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, accordingly,
the accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In
default, of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of two months."
8. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court,
the petitioner/accused has preferred Crl.A.No.175 of 2011
before the appellate Court, the appellate Court after
examining the material facts before it has passed the
following judgment:
"In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the
judgment and sentence passed by the learned II Additional
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam in C.C.No.258 of
2009, dated 01.12.2011."
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.1,50,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner/accused to
respondent No.2/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
