Telangana High Court
Bollu Mogili , Rajamogili vs The State Of Ap., Rep By Pp And Another on 28 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.734 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the
petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.05.2012 in
Crl.A.No.31 of 2010 on the file of the learned VIII Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC),, Warangal (for short, "the appellate Court")
in confirming the judgment dated 04.01.2010 in C.C.No.1414 of
2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Warangal (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1 State. No representation on behalf
of unofficial respondent No.2 despite service of notice. Perused the
record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant averred
that the accused entered loan-cum-hypothecation agreement with
the complainant on 25.08.2004 in respect of vehicle bearing No.
AP 31 V 3388 for a total agreement value of Rs.3,86,000/- payable
in (36) monthly installments and the first (24) installments being
Rs.11,100/- and next (11) installments being Rs.10,100/- and the
last installment being Rs.9,000/- commencing from 25.09.2004. The
accused paid Rs.85,300/- towards installments and thereafter he
committed default. The complainant seized the vehicle on
08.10.2005 and the same was intimated to the accused demanding
him to pay outstanding amount and to get vehicle released. Since
the accused did not pay the installment amount even after the
seizure of the vehicle, to mitigate the loss, the complainant sold the
vehicle for Rs.1,80,000/- on 31.01.2006 by giving credit of the sale
proceeds and also rebate of Rs.35,147/- for early settlement of
account. The complainant was still due a sum of Rs.1,03,782/- as on
31.01.2006. The complainant issued legal notice dated 04.05.2007
demanding repayment of the outstanding amount with interest
@24% per annum within (15) days of the date of receipt. The notice
was returned as refused on 09.05.2007. The accused came to the
office of complainant and after verifying the account he issued a
cheque dated 23.05.2007 for Rs.1,03,782/- drawn on Warangal
Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Warangal towards repayment of
the outstanding amount. The complainant presented the cheque on
23.05.2007 with HDFC Bank Limited and the same was
dishonoured and returned on 24.05.2007 with an endorsement of
"Insufficient Funds". The complainant issued a legal notice dated
29.05.2007 demanding the amount of Rs.1,03,782/- covered under
dishonoured cheque by granting (15) days time and the same was
served on the accused on 01.06.2007. The accused did not repay the
cheque amount. Hence, the complainant filed a case against the
petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for
short, "NI Act").
4. The trial Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2010 in
C.C.No.1414 of 2007 sentenced the accused to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.3,000/-,
in default, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 138
of NI Act. Against which, the accused preferred an appeal.
5. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.05.2012 in
Crl.A.No.31 of 2010 dismissed the appeal by confirming the
Judgment and conviction passed by the trial Court. Challenging the
same, the present revision is filed.
6. 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 11.05.2012 passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1161 of
2012, 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
2010 (5) SCC 663
2 (2012) 1 SCC 260
3 (2014) 16 SCC 32
4 (2015) 9 SCC 622
5 2013 (16) SCC 465
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.3,000/-, subject to
the payment of additional fine amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. In the
event of the accused paying fine amount of Rs.1,10,000/- within
one year from today the concerned Court shall call for appearance
of complainant and pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to him towards
compensation. Failing which, the accused shall suffer the default
sentence of six months simple imprisonment as ordered by the trial
Court to levy under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. and enforce it.
7. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case is
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: 09.01.2024
mmr
