Telangana High Court
G.Madhusudan Rao vs Sri V.Jagan Mohan Rao And The State Of ... on 27 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.11 OF 2011
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment 30.09.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2009 on the
file of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the
judgment dated 06.07.2009 in C.C.No.67 of 2009 on the file of
the learned XV Additional Judge-cum-XIX Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. A. Bikshapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.2 State. No representation on behalf
of unofficial respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused
obtained loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from respondent No.1/
complainant during second week of May, 2006 promising to
repay the same, within short time. Thereafter he failed to repay
the same. The accused issued cheque dated 13.04.2007 towards
discharge of the amount due. On presentation the said cheque
was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Later, the
complainant issued legal notice dated 15.05.2007 to the accused.
But the accused failed to pay the amount due within the
stipulated time. Hence, the accused was alleged to have
committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short, "the NI Act").
4. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found the
petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of three weeks. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
subject cheque, which was dishonoured does not fall within the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and hence, the trial Court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He further stated
that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, without
appreciating the material available on record in proper
perspective, erroneously passed their respective judgments by
holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of
NI Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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.
2010 (5) SCC 663
(2012) 1 SCC 260
(2014) 16 SCC 32
(2015) 9 SCC 622
2013 (16) SCC 465
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 Assistant Public Prosecutor 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 the appellate Court upon
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence rightly passed
the impugned judgment and sought to dismiss the Revision.
9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
respondent No.1 as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of
the defence, the petitioner was examined as DW1 and no
document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence
available on record, 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. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the present complaint. But, it is apparent from the
record that the petitioner failed to raise such an objection before
the trial Court. This Court vide order dated 05.01.2011
suspended the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the
appellate Court and released him on bail on executing personal
bond by him for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for
the like sum 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.25,000/- 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.20,000/- with immediate
effect. An amount of Rs.5,000/- shall remain with the State.
13. If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid direction, he
shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
14. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the
Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. 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: 27.03.2024
ESP
