Telangana High Court
Smt P.Swarna Latha vs Smt Chandrakala And Another on 18 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.336 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.281 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 appellant Court')
confirming the Judgment dated 15.06.2011 passed in
C.C.No.1271 of 2008 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 the complainant and
the accused hail from the same locality. They are well
acquainted with each other. The allegation against the
accused is that she borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- on
01.11.2015 and also another sum of Rs.30,000/- on
01.12.2005 and also another sum of Rs.25,000/- on
15.12.2007. Thus, the complainant had given the total
amount of Rs.85,000/- to the accused and the accused
having received Rs.85,000/- executed three promissory notes
in favour of the complainant with a promise that she will
repay the said amount on or before 28.03.2008. The further
allegation is that the accused did not repay the amount as
promised on or before 28.03.2008. Therefore, the
complainant started demanding the accused to repay the
amount of Rs.85,000/- borrowed by the accused. The
accused issued a cheque bearing No.674134, dated
11.09.2008 for Rs.15,000/- and another cheque bearing
No.657478, dated 18.09.2008 for Rs.20,000/- drawn on
State Bank of Hyderabad, Mylargadda branch. The
complainant presented the said cheques before the said bank
on 04.10.2008 and the cheques were dishonored by the bank
and returned back with an endorsement "Funds
Insufficient". The complainant has informed this fact to the
accused. Subsequently the complainant got issued a legal
notice on 13.10.2008 demanding the accused to repay the
amount within 15 days after receiving the notice. The
accused received the notice on 15.10.2008. In spite of
receiving notice, she did not repay the amount of
Rs.35,000/. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the
accused.
4. To bring the guilt of the accused the complainant
hereby examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the trial Court has passed the judgment in
C.C.No.1271 of 2008, 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.70,000/- which is the double amount of the cheques and
out of which the complainant is hereby awarded the amount
of Rs.50,000/- 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.281 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.1271 of 2008. Challenging the same, the present
criminal revision case has been preferred.
7. Heard Sri M.Anand Kumar, learned cousel 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 appellate Court erred in confirming the
judgment of the trial Court without properly appreciating the
material on record. Hence, seeks to allow this criminal
revision case by setting aside the judgment dated 15.06.2011
passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.1271 of 2008 which was
confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.281 of 2011
dated 04.02.2013.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State submitted that upon careful examination
of the material facts before it, both the trial Court and
appellate Court has rightly passed the judgments. Therefore,
interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted.
Hence seeks to dismiss this criminal revision case.
10. Recording the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon perusing the material available on record,
this Court is of the view that since this matter is pending
from quite long time as the petitioner might have undergone
mental agony 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 set off the
sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the
petitioner/accused. However, the fine amount of
Rs.70,000/- is reduced to Rs.55,000/-. Out of which,
Rs.50,000/- 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 judgment
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
