Telangana High Court
S.V.Subbaiah , E.V.Shastry vs A.Sadasiva Rao And The State Of A.P. on 21 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.394 OF 2013
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 20.02.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2012
on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad
(for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment
dated 30.05.2012 in C.C.No.17 of 2012 (old C.C.No.625 of 2011)
on the file of the learned XXIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad (for
short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner
appearing on-line, Mr. K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused
issued a cheque bearing No.080337 dated 02.05.2011 to
respondent No.1/complainant of Rs.70,000/- drawn on HDFC
Bank, Lakdikapul Branch, Hyderabad, at his house in Vinay
Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad towards discharge of debt due by
him against the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- received and borrowed by
him from the complainant on 07.03.2010 by executing a
promissory note, separately to the complainant stating that he is
in need of money to meet his sons B-Tech engineering to tide over
some financial problems. He promised to pay the said amount
within three months along with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum.
4. On presentation, the said cheque was returned unpaid for
the reason "funds insufficient". The same was intimated to the
accused. When the accused failed to pay the amount, the
complainant issued legal notice dated 27.06.2011 to the accused.
But the accused failed to pay the amount after stipulated time.
Thus, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
(for short, "NI Act").
5. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra found the
accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, accused was to
suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved thereby,
accused preferred an appeal.
6. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra dismissed
the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.
Assailing the same, the present Revision.
7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner stated that the trial Court as well as the appellate
Court concurrently found the petitioner guilty for the offence
punishable under Section.138 of N.I.Act. Learned counsel relied
upon the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by this Court in
Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.1708 & 1709 of 2016 in/and Crl.R.C.No.2887 of
2015, wherein and whereby, this Court upon taking into
consideration the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal 1, R. Vijayan Vs.
Baby 2, S.R. Sunil & Company Vs. D. Srinivasavaradan 3,
Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvi 4 and
Somnath Sarkar Vs. Utpal Basu Mallick 5, wherein it was held
that, the object of incorporating the penal provisions under
Sections 138 to 142 of the NI Act is not only to provide a strong
criminal remedy to deter the high incidence of dishonour of
cheques but a remedy of punitive nature and observed that where
2010 (5) SCC 663
(2012) 1 SCC 260
(2014) 16 SCC 32
(2015) 9 SCC 622
2013 (16) SCC 465
there is a conviction, there should be a consequential levy of fine
amount sufficient to cover the cheque amount along with simple
interest thereon at a fixed rate of 9% per annum and held that
the interest should be followed by an award of such sum as
compensation from the fine amount. However, to meet the ends
of justice, this Court modified the sentence of six months of
simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, to imprisonment
till rising of the day by giving set off to the period undergone if
any and fine of Rs.10,00,000/- of which Rs.50,000/- would go to
the State and Rs.9,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant
which includes Rs.10,000/- fine if paid to adjust and out of it in
compensation received by complainant, for the balance to pay or
deposit within one month from that day, failing which, the
accused was to suffer the default sentence of six months simple
imprisonment as imposed by the lower Court. Therefore, he seeks
to pass appropriate orders relying upon the said order.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor opposed the same and contended that
respondent No.1 underwent severe mental agony by roaming
around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Learned
counsel submitted that both the Courts upon appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence rightly passed the impugned
judgments and sought to dismiss the Revision.
9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PW1
and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the defence, none were
examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny
of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court and the
appellate Court observed that the complainant has made out all
the ingredients which are required so as to constitute the offence
under Section 138 of NI Act.
10. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 22.02.2013 suspended the sentence of imprisonment
imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of NI
Act, pending Revision, and released him on bail on furnishing a
personal bond for Rs.5,000/- by him with two sureties for a like
sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Thereafter, the
matter underwent several adjournments.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned
counsel, on perusing the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by this
Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.1708 & 1709 of 2016 in/and
Crl.R.C.No.2887 of 2015 and considering the fact that the
petitioner underwent mental agony roaming around the trial
Court as well as the appellate Court, this Court deems it
appropriate to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence
imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment
already undergone by him.
12. The petitioner is further directed to deposit compensation of
Rs.70,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within a period of six
months from today. On such deposit, respondent No.1 is at
liberty to withdraw the same with immediate effect.
13. If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid direction, he
shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
14. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case is
disposed of. Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to
work out the remedies available under law.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 21.03.2024
ESP
