Telangana High Court
Bojedla Satyanarayana vs Banala Narasimha Rao ,Banala Narasimha ... on 4 January, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1506 OF 2011
O R D E R:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 23.03.2011 in Crl.Appeal No.158 of 2007 on the
file of the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam (for short,
"the appellate Court") for setting aside the order of conviction in
C.C.No.645 of 2006, dated 01.10.2007 on the file of learned I
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Khammam (for short, "the
trial Court").
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard
Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent State.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on
14.12.2023 and 28.12.2023. Even today also there is no
representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, 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
1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 2
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 respondent
/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from
petitioner/complainant to meet his family necessities and
executed a promissory note with interest @24% p.a. On repeated
demands to repay the amount, he issued a cheque for sum of
Rs.1.20 lakhs. On presentation by petitioner/complainant, the
cheque was dishonored for insufficient funds in the account.
Therefore, petitioner issued the legal notice to the respondent to
pay the cheque amount. Accused approached the complainant
and again requested him to provide an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh.
the petitioner/complainant believed the respondent/accused and
gave him an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to the accused on
01.06.2005. Accordingly, the accused executed a promissory note
in his favour for Rs. 2.20 lakhs, which includes the previous
amount of Rs.1.20 lakhs. On repeated demands to repay the
amount, he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs. On
presentation, by petitioner/complainant, the cheque was
dishonoured for insufficient funds in the account. Therefore,
petitioner/complainant issued legal notice to the address of 3
respondent/accused demanding to pay the cheque amount, but
there was no response. Therefore, petitioner/complainant filed a
complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act").
5. The trial Court vide judgment dated 01.10.2007 in
C.C.No.645 of 2006 convicted the accused for the offence under
Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and directed him to pay
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- payable within a period of one
month from the date of the order, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved thereby, the accused
preferred an appeal.
6. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra found that
complainant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements
and failed to establish the existence of legally enforceable debt
and on the contrary, appellant clearly probabilized his contention
that the cheqeue was not issued in discharge of the legally
enforceable debt and consequently, appellant is entitled for
acquittal. The trial Court grossly erred in appreciation of these
contentions and therefore, set aside the judgment of trial Court. 4
7. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner
submitted that the appellate Court vide judgment cited supra
erroneously dismissed the order passed by the learned trial Court
without any valid reason. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the
impugned judgment.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the
appellate Court after careful scrutiny of the evidence available on
record rightly passed the impugned judgment and the
interference of this Court, at this stage is unwarranted.
Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision.
9. On behalf of the petitioner/complainant, learned trial
Court examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf
of respondent No.2/accused DW1 was examined and Exs.D1 to
D4 were marked. The trial Court on perusal of the promissory
note i.e., Ex P1-Promisorynote executed by the accused found for
Rs. 2.20 lakhs, dated 01.06.2005 and Ex.P2- Cheque issued by
the accused for Rs.2.5 lakhs, Ex.P3-debit advice issued by
Canara Bank, dated 09.06.2006, Ex.P4- Memo issued by
A.P.Mahesh Urban Bank Ltd., Khammam branch, dated
08.06.2006, Ex.P5- Office copy of legal notice issued to the
accused, dated 13.06.2006 and Ex.P6-acknowledge under which 5
accused received Ex.P5. The cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3, it
appears that they have not spoken all the facts and the case of
the complainant appears illogical and improbable. As per Ex.P1-
promissory note, 2% interest was agreed for month and the
promissory note was dated 01.06.2005. By 30.05.2006 one year
completed. For Rs.2,20,000/- at the rate of Rs.2/- per month
interest, if calculated, the interest would be Rs.4,400/- for the
period of 12 months, it comes to Rs.52,800/- and if this amount
is added to Rs.2,20,000/-, the cheque for an amount of
Rs.2,72,800/-. Therefore, in any calculation, the amounts
claimed by the complainant are not existing with his own
statement and it is the burden of the complainant clearly
establish about the existing liability and in view of the clear
discrepancy in regard to the amounts given by the complainant to
the accused, it cannot be said that Ex.P2 is issued for
discharging legally enforceable debt.
10. Therefore, upon careful scrutiny of the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the
opinion that the appellate Court has appreciated the evidence
available on record in right perspective and I do not find any 6
reason to interfere with order, dated 23.03.2011 in Crl.Appeal
No.158 of 2007 passed by the Appellate Court.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 04.01.2024 ktm/esp 7
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1506 OF 2011
Dated: 04.01.2024
ESP
