HONOURABLE SRI JUS1TICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1544 OF 2007 Dated 20-8-2014 Between:
Angadi Veera Bhadrappa.
..Petitioner.
And:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1544 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 23-3-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2006 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar whereunder judgment dated 5-9-2006 in C.C.No.289 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narayanpet, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Second respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against revision petitioner alleging that he advanced a sum of Rs.45,000/- to meet his personal necessities, when he demanded for repayment of the said amount, accused issued a cheque dated 25.7.2002 for Rs.45,000/-. When the same was presented in the bank for collection, it was dishonoured first on 21-8- 2002, then complainant informed the same to the accused, who requested complainant to wait for sometime. On his request, he waited and again presented cheque on 25-9-2002 but it was again dishonoured. Thereafter, he issued a legal notice on 26-10-2002 demanding payment of cheque amount. The accused having received the legal notice, he neither paid the amount nor gave any reply and thereby, committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On these allegations, three witnesses are examined on behalf of complainant and twelve documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and one witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar and I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
When this matter is listed on 8-8-2014, no one appeared on behalf of both parties and therefore, the matter is directed to be listed to this day under the caption of orders. In spite of that, none appeared on behalf of both parties and therefore, the matter is decided basing on the material available on record.
According to the grounds urged in the revision, both courts have failed to consider the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and they are not attracted and evidence is not properly appreciated. It is further contended that both the courts failed to consider legal proposition laid by Honourable apex court and thereby, there was miscarriage of justice.
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, a sum of Rs.45,000/- was advanced to revision petitioner to meet his personal necessities and the accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. When the same was presented, it was returned under Exs.P.2 to P.5/. Thereafter, complainant issued notice under Ex.P.7. The complainant is examined as P.W.1. He deposed supporting the complaint averments and further stated that in spite of repeated requests, the accused failed to discharge the loan amount but finally issued Ex.P.1 cheque on 25-7-2002 drawn on Sangameswara Grameena Bank, Narayanpet Branch. When the same was presented in State Bank of Hyderabad, Narayanpet for collection, it was first dishonoured on 21-8-2002. Immediately, he approached accused and apprised him fact of dishonour, for which, he requested him to wait. Accordingly, he waited for some time and again presented for collection on 25-9-2002. Once again, it was dishonoured and therefore, he issued a legal notice. Though this P.W.1 was cross examined, nothing could be elicited from him to doubt his testimony with regard to advancing amount, dishonour of cheque and issue of legal notice, Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Narayanpet is examined as P.W.2 who deposed that the cheque presented for collection was dishonoured. Field Officer of Sangameswara Grameena Bank is examined as P.W.3 who deposed about account of accused and balance amount available in the account of the accused. As against this, accused himself is examined as R.W.1. He contended that he joined as member in the chit group and at the time of payment of prize money, blank cheque was obtained as security. But the evidence of R.W.1 is not at all supported and corroborated with any other evidence either oral or documentary. When the complainant has discharged his initial burden of proving of issue of cheque, the legal presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act is that cheque is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that presumption is to be rebutted. Here the accused has miserably failed to rebut the legal presumption and both trial court and appellate court considering these aspects held that complainant proved guilt of the revision petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt.
I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. Though revision petitioner contended that both trial court and appellate court have failed to consider the law laid down by the Honourable apex court, he failed to point out in the grounds or through arguments the legal position or the principles that were ignored by the trial court or appellate court. Except taking a ground in the revision for the sake of filing revision, the revision petitioner failed to substantiate the same.
On a scrutiny of evidence on record, I am of the view that trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant and on behalf of accused and I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of trial court or appellate court.
For these reasons, it is held that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings and therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming 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 20-8-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1544 OF 2007 Dated 20-8-2014