HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1064 OF 2007 Dated 4-9-2014 Between:
Adelli Pulla Reddy.
And:
..Petitioner.
Venula Karunakar Reddy and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1064 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 2-7-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2005 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad whereunder judgment dated 7-3-2005 in C.C.No.1362 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Luxettipet, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: First respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 31- 3-2002 from the first respondent promising to repay the same with interest at 2% per month on demand and failed to repay the same but on demand, he issued a cheque bearing No.373803 dated 15-9-2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Hanamkonda Branch and that when the same is presented for collection before the Station Bank of Hyderabad, Mancheirial on 18-9-2002, it was returned with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds” and thereafter, complainant got issued a legal notice dated 7-10-2002 demanding cheque amount but the said notice was returned unserved and as the revision petitioner failed to comply with the demand under the legal notice, therefore, revision petitioner is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
On these allegations, one witness is examined and six documents are marked on behalf of complainant and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of revision petitioner. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment besides compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Adilabad and I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad dismissed the appeal and confirmed conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
When this matter is listed on 10-7-2014 and 6-8- 2014, none appeared for the revision petitioner. Again, it was listed on 20-8-2014 and on that day also, no one appeared on behalf of revision petitioner and only advocate for first respondent appeared. From that day, it is posted to this day under the caption of orders and in spite of that, the revision petitioner has not evinced any interest to prosecute the case.
Heard the advocate for first respondent.
He submitted that both trial court and appellate court, on appreciation of evidence, convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. It is further submitted out of compensation awarded, only 25% compensation is deposited and the revision petitioner has not paid the remaining amount.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to complainant, he advanced Rs.1,00,000/- on a promissory note and in discharge of the said debt, accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque and when it is presented for collection, it is returned under Ex.P.3 memo, thereafter, he issued Ex.P.4 notice.
According to the grounds urged in the revision, the contention of the revision petitioner is that there is no legally enforceable debt and both the courts lost sight of this aspect and convicted the revision petitioner.
But as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he clearly deposed in the evidence that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him promising to repay the same with interest at 2% P.M. and failed to repay the said amount and in discharge of the said debt, accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque. He was cross-examined on behalf of accused. According to defence version, the cheque was taken as security of the debt. So, from the very suggestion of P.W.1, it is clear that the money is due to the complainant, therefore, the objection that the cheque is not issued for a legally enforceable debt is incorrect and the objection of the revision petitioner that both the courts lost sight of this aspect is not at all tenable.
According to Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden is on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt but it was issued as security. There is absolutely no evidence to support the plea of the defence that the cheque was taken as security at the time of advancing money. The revision petitioner did not come into the witness box and has not examined any witness to rebut the legal presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Both trial court and appellate court have considered this aspect and negatived objection of revision petitioner.
I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or appellate court and also do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of trial court and appellate court on any of the material aspects.
As seen from the record, both trial court and appellate court have elaborately considered every objection raised on behalf of revision petitioner with reference to evidence and law, therefore, I am of the view that both trial court and appellate court rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence.
The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 4-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1064 OF 2007 Dated 4-9-2014