Telangana High Court
Chowl Shanker vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp And ... on 21 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.531 OF 2012
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 03.02.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2011 on
the file of the learned Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad (for short,
"the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated
01.03.2011 in C.C.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Armoor (for short, "the trial
Court").
2. Heard Mr. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent No.1 State and Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy,
learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.01.2009, the
petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from
respondent No.2/complainant upon executing a promissory note.
On demand, the accused issued a post dated cheque. The said
cheque was presented on 16.09.2009 in Indian Overseas Bank,
Armoor for collection of amount but the cheque was returned on
17.09.2009 with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Thereupon,
the complainant issued legal notice dated 24.09.2009 to the
accused. On receipt of legal notice, the accused issued an evasive
reply dated 13.10.2009. Thus, the accused was alleged to have
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act").
4. 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 a period of
one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, the accused was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for
a period of three months. Aggrieved thereby, accused preferred
an appeal.
5. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra dismissed
the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.
Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6. 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 Mallick5, 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
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
2010 (5) SCC 663
(2012) 1 SCC 260
(2014) 16 SCC 32
(2015) 9 SCC 622
2013 (16) SCC 465
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.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the same and contended
that respondent No.2 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.
8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the defence,
DW1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 was marked. Upon
careful consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, Exs.P1 to
P9 coupled with Exs.D1 and D2, 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.
9. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 30.03.2012 suspended the sentence of imprisonment
imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of NI
Act pending Revision and released the petitioner 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.
10. 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.
11. The petitioner is further directed to deposit compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within a period of six
months from today. On such deposit, respondent No.2 is at
liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- with immediate
effect. An amount of Rs.5,000/- shall remain with the State.
12. If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid direction, he
shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
13. 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
