Telangana High Court
Smt P.Swarna Latha vs Smt G.Annapurna And Another on 18 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.335 of 2013
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment
dated 04.02.2013 passed in Crl.A.No.280 of 2011 on the file
of the learned Special Judge for Trial of offences under SCs
and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Secunderabad (for short 'the appellate Court')
confirming the Judgment dated 15.06.2011 passed in
C.C.No.185 of 2009 on the file of the X Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad (for short 'the trial
Court').
2. The petitioner herein is accused and respondent No.1
herein is complainant before the trial Court. For the sake of
convenience hereinafter parties are referred to as the
complainant and the accused.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a private complaint
was filed by the complainant against the accused alleging
that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.87,000/- on
29.06.2008 with a promise that she will repay the said
amount within two months and executed an
acknowledgment on non-judicial stamp paper worth of
Rs.20/- undertaking that she would repay the said amount
on 28.08.2008, but she did not repay the amount to the
complainant as she promised. The accused said to have
issued a cheque bearing No.683258, dated 03.10.2008 in
respect of the said amount of Rs.87,000/- drawn on State
Bank of Hyderabad, Mylargadda, Secunderabad, for the
purpose of discharging the above said legally enforceable
debt and subsequently when the complainant presented the
cheque in the concerned bank on 10.11.2008 it was
dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the
accused. The further allegation is that as the cheque was
dishonoured the accused has committed the offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently
the complainant got issued a legal notice on 13.11.2008 as
required under Section 138 of NI Act demanding the accused
to repay the said amount and the accused received the said
notices on 19.11.2008 and in spite of receipt of legal notices
he did not come forward to repay the amount borrowed by
her. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint against
the accused.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused the complainant
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.7 and
material object M.O.1-C.D was also marked.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the trial Court has passed the judgment in
C.C.No.185 of 2009, the relevant portion is as under:
"25. In the result, the accused is found guilty and she
is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the
accused is sentenced to undergo the simple imprisonment for
a period of one year and apart from simple imprisonment of
one year that she is further sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.1,74,000/- which is the doubt amount of the cheque and
out of which the complainant is hereby awarded the amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- towards her compensation as contemplated
under Section 357 of Cr.P.C."
6. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court,
the petitioner/accused preferred Crl.A.No.280 of 2011 before
the appellate Court, the appellate Court upon considering
the material facts before it has dismissed the appeal
confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court in
C.C.No.185 of 2009. Challenging the same, the present
criminal revision case has been preferred.
7. Sri M.Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent-State and perused the record.
8. Sri M. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the trial Court has failed to confirm the
evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P7 and also MO.1-CD and
erred in confirming the judgment of the trial Court even
though there was enough material on record to upset the
judgment of the trial Court and also failed to consider the
cross examination of PW.1 and the favourable points scored
by the defence in the cross examination of PW.1 including
the admission of PW.1 that she was earning an amount of
Rs.6000/- by doing tailor work and that she had no capacity
to lend the cheque amount. Hence, seeks to allow this
criminal revision case by setting aside judgment dated
04.02.2013 passed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.280 of
2011.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State submitted that the appellate Court after
careful examination has rightly allowed Crl.A.No.280 of
2011by confirming the judgment dated 15.06.2011 passed
by the trial Court in C.C.No.185 of 2009. Therefore,
interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted.
Hence, seeks to dismiss the present criminal revision case.
10. Recording the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon perusing the material available on record,
since this matter is pending from quite long time, this Court
is of the opinion that the petitioner/accused might have
undergone physical incorporation and mental agony in
roaming around the Courts i.e., from trial Court to appellate
Court; from appellate Court to High Court. Therefore, this
Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view.
Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the
period already undergone by the petitioner/accused and the
fine amount is reduced from Rs.1,74,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/-.
Out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid by the
petitioner/accused to respondent No.1/complainant within a
period of three months from today.
11. Except the above modification, no further interference
of this Court is warranted with respect to the order passed
by the learned appellate Court. Accordingly, the present
criminal revision case is partly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dated: 18.03.2024
vsu
