Telangana High Court
Syed Arifuddin, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., And ... on 9 January, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.484 and 834 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the Criminal Revision
Cases is one and the same, they are being heard together and
disposed of by way of common order.
2. The Criminal Revision Case No.484 of 2012 is filed by the
petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.02.2012
in Crl.A.No.261 of 2011 on the file of the learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in
confirming the judgment dated 11.05.2011 in C.C.No.472 of 2010
on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge-cum-XIX
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short,
"the trial Court").
3. The Criminal Revision Case No.834 of 2012 is filed by the
petitioner/complainant seeking to modify the judgment dated
dated 28.02.2012 in Crl.A.No.261 of 2011 on the file of the
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the
appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 11.05.2011 in
C.C.No.472 of 2010 on the file of the learned XV Additional
Judge-cum-XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
4. Heard Mr. Zulfaquar Alam, 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.
For the sake of convenience, the facts in Criminal Revision
Case No.834 of 2012 are discussed hereunder:-
5. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner/complainant and respondent No.2/accused were
known to each other. Out of such acquaintance, the accused
requested the complainant to lend a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as
hand loan and promised to repay the same within a short time.
On 24.04.2009 and 25.04.2009, the complainant advanced an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused through cheque bearing
Nos.468954 and 468955 dated 24.04.2009, 468956 and 468957
dated 25.04.2009 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each totaling
Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Darussalam Co-operative Urban Bank
Limited, Aghapura Branch, Hyderabad. Later, the complainant
demanded the accused to repay the said loan.
6. On demand, the accused issued cheque bearing No.860467
dated 10.07.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of
India, Tolichowki branch, Hyderabad in favour of the
complainant. The complainant deposited the said cheque in his
account with his banker namely, Darussalam Co-operative Urban
Bank Limited, Aghapura Branch, Hyderabad on 11.07.2009 and
the said cheque was returned as unpaid for the reason
"insufficient funds". The complainant informed the accused about
dishonour of the cheque. Then, the accused requested him to
represent the cheque. On re-presentation, the said cheque was
returned unpaid once again, for the reason "insufficient funds".
Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice dated 04.02.2010
to the accused seeking to pay the loan amount. But in vain.
Hence, the complainant filed a case against the petitioner under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI
Act").
7. The trial Court vide judgment dated 11.05.2011 in
C.C.No.472 of 2010 sentenced the accused to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default, sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The remand period of
the accused if any, was directed to be set off as against the term
of imprisonment as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Against which, the
accused preferred an appeal.
8. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2012 in
Crl.A.No.261 of 2011 dismissed the appeal by modifying the
judgment passed by the trial Court and awarding the
compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, apart from
sentencing the accused to suffer the imprisonment for one year
and payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the trial Court.
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.
2010 (5) SCC 663
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, 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
2 (2012) 1 SCC 260
3 (2014) 16 SCC 32
4 (2015) 9 SCC 622
5 2013 (16) SCC 465
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, seeks to pass appropriate
orders relying upon the said order.
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that
respondent No.2 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 the impugned judgments.
But, as the matter is pending from the year 2012 learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to pass appropriate orders.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned
counsel and upon taking into consideration the decisions of the
Apex Court cited (supra1) and Meters and Instruments Private
Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta 6, this Court is of the
view that the accused had already undergone mental agony by
suffering incarceration and roaming around the trial Court as
well as the appellate Court and hence, this Court inclined to set
off the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
Consequently, the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of
(2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 560
Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within a period of six
(6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On
depositing the same, petitioner/complainant is at liberty to
withdraw the same with the permission of the trial Court.
12. In default of payment of the said amount, the impugned
judgment dated 28.02.2012 in Crl.A.No.261 of 2011 on the file of
the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad stands good
in all respects.
13. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case
Nos.834 of 2012 and 484 of 2012 are disposed of.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 09.01.2024
ESP
