Telangana High Court
P.G.Dattanand, Hyderabad., vs Gannu Varun Kumar, Warangal And Anr, Re ... on 10 January, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1749 OF 2017
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and
401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 23.06.2017
passed in Crl.A.No.43 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Warangal (for short 'the appellate Court').
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. 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 the petitioner herein
borrowed a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- on 20.04.2012 from for his
private needs from respondent No.1 agreeing to provide visa in
1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 2
foreign country and in case of his failure, he will return the said
amount and executed a promissory note to that effect. Due to
failure of providing visa as assured, the petitioner has issued a
cheque bearing No.000047 dated 20.04.2012 drawn on Bank of
India, Athapur Brach, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 has
deposited the said cheque on 15.05.2012 in ICICI Bank, Main
Branch, Warangal, and the same was returned with an
endorsement "Insufficient Funds". In spite of receipt of notice,
the petitioner did not choose to pay the cheque amount or to give
any reply. Hence, respondent No.1 filed a private complaint.
After following the due procedure and considering the oral and
documentary evidence of either of the parties, the trial Court
found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly
he was convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the
petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and for the offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to pay
the cheque amount of Rs.5,60,000/- towards compensation to
the respondent, in default thereof, he shall suffer simple 3
imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the
said Judgment, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before
the appellate Court vide Crl.A.No.43 of 2016. After appreciating
the evidence on record and considering the contentions of both
the parties, the appellate Court has modified the Judgment dated
28.04.2016 passed by the trial Court to the extent of in default of
payment of cheque amount of Rs.5,60,000/-, the petitioner shall
suffer simple imprisonment for three months and confirmed the
rest of the Judgment. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has
preferred this criminal revision case.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State would submit that the learned appellate Court
after appreciating the material facts before it has passed the
order. Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is
unwarranted. Hence seeks to dismiss the present criminal
revision case.
6. Recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the entire material available
on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well 4
reasoned order passed by the Court below. Therefore, this Court
is not inclined to entertain the present Criminal Revision Case.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 10.01.2024 VSU
