Telangana High Court
Linga Bhasker Rao, vs Linga Subba Rao, And Another, on 21 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1285 OF 2012
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 30.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2012
on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under
SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Secunderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in
modifying the judgment dated 18.01.2012 in C.C.No.69 of 2011
on the file of the learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad (for
short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. Anand, learned counsel representing
Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. B. Subhash, learned counsel representing Ms. Bonala
Saramma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Vizarath
Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.2 State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2008,
petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from
respondent No.1/complainant and issued a cheque bearing
No.394997 dated 30.06.2008 of ICICI Bank, Punjagutta Branch
for a sum of Rs.3,88,000/- and cash worth Rs.12,000/-. The
accused executed a promissory note for the said amounts on the
same day and issued a post dated cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- to
realize the said sum. It is stated that accused was also due an
amount of Rs.1,56,000/- to the complainant as on 30.09.2010
towards interest accrued @ 36% per annum. On presentation, the
said cheque issued for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was returned
unpaid by the bank with a reason "account closed".
4. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice
to the accused requesting him to repay the amount within the
stipulated time. But the accused neither replied the said notice
nor repaid the amount.
5. Added to it the other cheque issued by the accused for a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards interest due as on 30.09.2010, on
presentation, was also returned unpaid by the Bank with a
reason "funds insufficient". The complainant again issued the
legal notice but the accused failed to repay the said amount as
well. Hence, the accused was alleged to have committed the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act").
6. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found the
accused guilty of the alleged offence and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the accused was
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred an appeal.
7. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra, sentenced
the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant
preferred a Revision seeking to enhance the punishment imposed
against the accused and direct him to pay double the amount of
cheque as compensation for the alleged dishonour.
8. Vide order dated 30.07.2012 in Criminal Revision Petition
No.62 of 2012, the accused 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 six
months. The accused was further directed to pay compensation
of Rs.7,00,000/- within six months from the date of the
judgment. Failing which, the complainant was granted liberty to
recover the same as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. or other relevant
Acts. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner 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 Mallick5, 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
2010 (5) SCC 663
(2012) 1 SCC 260
(2014) 16 SCC 32
(2015) 9 SCC 622
2013 (16) SCC 465
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, modified the sentence of six months of simple
imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, to imprisonment 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.
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel
for respondent No.2 opposed the same and contended that
respondent No.2 underwent severe mental agony by roaming
around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Learned
counsel further submitted that the both the Courts upon
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, rightly passed
their respective judgments. But, as the matter is pending from
the year 2012 learned counsel sought to pass appropriate orders.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by all 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 to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
credit of the trial Court within six months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order, while giving set off to the period of
imprisonment already undergone by him.
12. In default of payment of the said amount, the judgment
dated 30.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2012 on the file
of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs
(POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Secunderabad stands good in all respects.
13. Upon depositing the said amount, respondent No.1/
complainant is granted liberty to withdraw the same with
immediate effect.
14. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case stands
disposed of. Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to
work out the remedies available under law.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 21.02.2024
ESP
