Telangana High Court
Chiluveru Ilaiah , Babu, Warangal vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High Court ... on 29 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1469 OF 2011
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 24.06.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2010
on the file of the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Warangal (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the
judgment dated 10.06.2010 in C.C.No.819 of 2008 on the file of
the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at
Warangal (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Ms. Hima Bindu, learned counsel representing
Mr. E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent No.2 State.
3. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 29.03.2007,
petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from
respondent No.2/complainant for his personal necessities and
executed a demand promissory note in his favour agreeing to
repay the said amount with interest at 12% per annum within six
months. Even after repeated requests, the accused failed to repay
the amount. The complainant issued legal notice dated
19.01.2008 for recovery of the amount due. After receiving the
said notice, the accused approached the complainant and stated
that the total amount due under the promissory note was
Rs.1,11,000/-, to that effect issued a cheque dated 24.02.2008
drawn on Development Credit Bank, Warangal Branch and
requested him to present the said cheque on 10.02.2008.
4. On presentation, the cheque was returned dishonoured on
the same day with a reason "funds insufficient". There upon, the
complainant again issued a legal notice dated 15.03.2008 calling
upon him to pay the cheque amount. Even after receipt of the
said notice, the accused failed to repay the amount due. Hence,
the present complaint.
5. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra sentenced the
accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months and pay fine of Rs.4,000/-. Out of the fine amount
realized, Rs.2,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant
towards compensation, in default of payment of the fine, the
accused was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a period
of two months. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred an
appeal.
6. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra dismissed
the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the appellate
Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
7. 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 N.I.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
2010 (5) SCC 663
(2012) 1 SCC 260
(2014) 16 SCC 32
(2015) 9 SCC 622
2013 (16) SCC 465
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
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.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 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 submitted that the both the Courts upon
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence rightly passed
the impugned judgments. But, as the matter is pending from the
year 2011 learned counsel sought to pass appropriate orders.
9. On behalf of the complainant, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the defence
none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful
scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the both the
Courts observed that the accused pleaded that Ex P1 cheque was
kept with one Sarangapani and the said Sarangapani, with a
dishonest intention handed over the same to the complainant.
The complainant misused the same and filed the present
complaint. As such there was no privity of contract between the
accused and the complainant.
10. The accused failed to substantiate his defence of issuing the
blank cheque to Sarangapani, who misused the same by handing
it over to the complainant. Therefore, the appellate Court found
that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reasonable and
the complainant was able to prove the guilt of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellate Court dismissed the
appeal and rendered the judgment cited supra.
11. In the present case on hand, both the Courts held that the
petitioner was guilty for the offence punishable under Section
138 of I.P.C., which finding, in my considered view, does not call
for interference, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under
Section 397 Cr.P.C.
12. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned
counsel, on 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, upon considering the fact that the
petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course
of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court
and as twelve long years have elapsed from the date of filing this
Revision, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed
against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already
undergone by him and direct the petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within one year from
today. Out of which, an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the
State and Rs.90,000/- shall be paid to respondent No. 2
13. In default of payment of the said amount, the judgment
dated 24.06.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2010 on the file
of the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal
stands good in all respects.
14. Upon depositing the said amount, respondent No.2/
complainant is granted liberty to withdraw the same with
immediate effect.
15. 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: 29.02.2024
ESP
