Telangana High Court
Rajan Sanghi, Hyd vs Smt. Babitha Agarwal, Hyd And Ano on 12 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1753 of 2014 &
2710 of 2016
COMMON ORDER :
Criminal Revision Case No.1753 of 2014 is filed under Section
397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.03.2014 in
Criminal Appeal No.1134 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and whereunder
while upholding the conviction awarded to the accused vide Judgment
dated 05.11.2012 in CC No.81 of 2011 on the file of the learned First
Class Magistrate, Hyderabad the learned District Judge set aside the
sentence awarded by the trial Court i.e. to pay a compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- and in default of payment of such compensation
amount to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and remitted back
CC No.81 of 2011 to the trial Court for passing appropriate sentence
after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides.
2. Criminal Revision Case No.2710 of 2016 is also filed by the
petitioner/accused under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by
the judgment dated 13.10.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2015 on
the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad wherein and whereunder the findings of the learned XXIII
Special Magistrate, Hyderabad vide judgment dated 23.10.2015 in
CC No.917 of 2013 convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to
suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.13,25,000/- and in default to of payment of such fine amount, to
suffer simple imprisonment for four months were confirmed.
3. Heard Sri A.Naren Rudra, learned counsel for the
petitioners in both the matters, Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State
and Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, learned counsel for the unofficial
respondent in both the matters.
4. Since parties to both these criminal revision cases are one
and the same and the subject matter to be adjudicated is one and the
same, this Court disposed of these two matters through this common
order.
5. The facts that lead to initiation of criminal proceedings
against the accused in CC Nos.81 of 2011 and 917 of 2013, in brief, are
that the accused/petitioner along with his close relatives approached,
requested and availed a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the complainant
assuring to pledge their properties stating that the said properties were
free from all charges, encumbrances etc., and executed a pledge letter
Ex.P1 but the accused/petitioner, in collusion with others, got one flat
from and out of the said properties registered in the name of his wife
against such pledge and hence, Crime No.91 of 2010, on the file of the
Central Crime Station was registered and during pendency of the said
proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and
accordingly, cheque bearing Nos.152733 and 152734 both dated
16.09.2010, drawn on Central Bank, Charminar Branch, Hyderabad for
Rs.27,00,000/- and Rs.13,00,000/- respectively were issued by the
accused in favour of the complainant, which, on presentation were
returned unpaid due to insufficiency of the funds in the account of the
petitioner under Ex.P4/memo. Accordingly, the unofficial respondent,
after issuing statutory notice under Ex.P5 and complying with required
procedural aspects, filed present criminal cases seeking to punish the
accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for his failure
in honouring the subject cheques.
6. The respective trial Courts, upon considering the evidence
available on record, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced
him, as stated supra.
7. The petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.1134 of
2012 and the unofficial respondent herein preferred Criminal Revision
Petition No.373 of 2012 against the findings made in judgment in CC
No.81 of 2011. Further, the petitioner herein also preferred Criminal
Appeal No.898 of 2016 aggrieved by the findings of the learned Judge of
the trial Court in CC No.917 of 2013. The learned District Judge of the
appellate Court, while dismissing Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2016
confirmed the findings of the trial Court in CC No.917 of 2013. The
concerned learned District Judge of the appellate Court, while
dismissing Criminal Revision Petition No.373 of 2012 and Criminal
Appeal No.1134 of 2012, remitted back CC No.81 of 2011 to the trial
Court for passing appropriate sentence, as stated supra.
8. Aggrieved by the findings of respective trial Courts and the
District Courts, the present criminal revision cases are filed by the
petitioner herein mainly contending that the said findings are contrary
to law, facts of the case and are vitiated by material irregularity without
there being any subsisting legally enforceable debt or the liability to be
fastened under Sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act against the
petitioner, ignored the fact that the petitioner rebutted presumption
under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act and also the fact that the
petitioner is a stranger to the subject transaction and highhanded act
of the unofficial respondent in forcibly obtaining signatures on blank
papers, stamp papers, blank cheques etc.
9. In support of their case, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon various decisions, as under :
(1) Ch.Raghunandan and others Vs. State of Telangana
represented by Special Public Prosecutor 1.
2022(3) ALT (Crl.)123
(2) Mohammed Iftequar Uddin Siddiqui, Hyderabad
Vs.Mohammed Ghouse Mohiuddin, Hyderabad PP and
others 2.
(3) Gunaganti Hanmandlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,
through Sub-Inspector of Police, represented by its
Public Prosecutor 3.
(4) Sangannagari Narasimulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 4.
(5) State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Chitranjan Rangnath Raja
and another 5.
(6) KP Chinnasamy Vs. TB Kennedy 6.
(7) Kusum @ Ujwala Abasaheb Waghmare and another Vs.
Dharu @ Abasaheb Sukhdeo Waghmare and another 7.
(8) Daungarshi Madanlal Zunzunwala Vs. M/s.Deviprasa;d
Omprakash Bajoria and another 8.
(9) Issakkimuthu Vs. Mallika 9.
(10) Ravi and others Vs.The State, rep. by the Inspector of
Police, CCIW/CID, Vellore 10
10. The main crux of the above referred decisions is that when
the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in a right perspective,
leading to miscarriage of justice, it is the bounden duty of the High
Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would factually
submit that Sections 134 and 139 of Indian Contract Act shall come
into play to shield the petitioner herein. However, such submission, in
the considered view of this Court, cannot stand for legal scrutiny since
2000 SCC OnLine TS 3105
2011 SCC OnLine AP 1211
2005 SCC OnLine AP 1098
(1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 516
2006 SCC OnLine Mad 1009
2015 SCC OnLine Bom. 6031
1985 SCC OnLine Bom.322
2012 SCC OnLine Mad. 2004
2008 SCC OnLine Mad. 486
the petitioner has every opportunity to defend himself by putting forth
his case before the Court below not in this criminal revision case.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the unofficial
respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor have vehemently
opposed the present criminal cases mainly contending that the findings
of both the Courts below, in both the matters, are well considered
findings and there is no necessity for interference with the same. In
support of their contention that this Court need not interfere with the
concurrent findings of the Courts below under Sections 397 and 401
Cr.P.C. unless the said findings are vitiated by perversity, error of law
or jurisdictional error and that when the petitioner contended that the
subject cheques were taken by force, being a prudent man, he needs to
take appropriate recourse, relied upon the following decisions.
(1) Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar 11.
(2) Yarlagadda Narasimha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
represented by Public Prosecutor and another 12.
13. The case of the petitioner in both the criminal revision
cases is that his signatures were obtained forcibly on some blank
papers, cheques etc. In view of the fact that even after receipt of legal
notice also he kept quiet without taking any action against the
unofficial respondent the said defence cannot be countenanced.
(2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 197
2023 SCC OnLine AP 1952
Furthermore, except oral assertion, there is no evidence to substantiate
the same. Registration of Crime No.91 of 2010, Exs.P1 and P2
clinchingly prove the existence of legally enforceable debt in favour of
the unofficial respondent and against the petitioner. The unofficial
respondent, by examining herself as PW1 and examining PW2 and
exhibiting Exs.P1 to P8 could able to prove dishonour of cheque Ex.P3
under Ex.P4 return memo and issuance of legal notice under Ex.P5 and
receipt of the same by the petitioner under Ex.P6 postal
acknowledgment, which contained the signatures of the petitioner and
further, he admitted the same. The main grievance of the unofficial
respondent is the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by
the Courts below.
14. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he is not a
borrower and he stood as guarantor for the loan amount and in such
capacity he issued the subject cheques and hence, he cannot be
fastened with the liability for the dishonour of the subject cheques.
When he admitted issuance of subject cheques towards discharge of
legally enforceable debt, either he is a borrower or guarantor, he is
bound to honour the same and upon their dishonour, having failed to
repay the same within the stipulated time, he is liable for the said
dishonour.
15. So far as the contention of the petitioner that awarding
compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- without imposing sentence as
contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act is concerned, law is well
settled that under Section 138 of NI Act, after the amendment of 2002,
the imprisonment that may be imposed may extend to two years, while
fine may extend to twice the amount of cheque. However, the trial is
conducted in summary way, then learned Magistrate can pass sentence
of imprisonment not exceeding one year and amount of fine exceeding
Rs. 5,000/-. But the Court below, directly ordered compensation
amount without imposing fine against the petitioner. In such
circumstances, the learned District Judge of the appellate Court, while
upholding the conviction recorded against the accused in CC No.81 of
2011, remitted back the same to the trial Court for passing appropriate
sentence after giving opportunity to the parties for hearing. When the
said fact is evaluated with the evidence available on record, settled
principle of law laid down, the facts and circumstances of the case, the
findings of the learned District Judge in remitting back the case to the
trial Court appears to be plausible and it cannot be interfered with.
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present criminal
revision cases.
16. In the result, Criminal Revision Case Nos.1753 of 2014 and
2710 of 2016 are dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any
pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated : 12-01-2024
abb
