THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.311 of 2007 Date:14.07.2014 Between:
K. Narsing Rao . Petitioner.
AND M/s.Narender Kumar & Company Rep by its Partner Narender Kumar Secunderabad and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.311 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 23-01-2007 in Crl.A.No.233/2006 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad whereunder judgment dated 12-06-2006 in C.C.No.354/2002 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad was modified.
2. Brief facts of the case are that first respondent herein filed a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I Act’) alleging that the revision petitioner is having business transactions with him for the past 10 years and the complainant has been extending credit facility to the accused and the accused received material worth of Rs.8,78,812/- under separate delivery challans and bills, which have been duly acknowledged by the accused or by the representative of the accused. Thereafter, on 22-10-2001, the accused purchased material worth of Rs.1,33,819/- from the complainant. Out of the said amount, the accused paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- in cash and the accused fell due of an outstanding amount of Rs.7,84,993/- to the complainant and in discharge of the debt, he issued three cheques; one for Rs.4,00,000/-, dated 05-12-2001, second for Rs.3,84,993/-, dated 07-01-2002, and third for Rs.93,819/-, dated 05-11-2001, drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, United Bank of India & Secunderabad Co-Op.Urban Bank Limited respectively and when out of these three, two cheques were presented for collection, both cheques were returned with an endorsement “account closed” and also when the third cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. On that, a statutory notice was issued on 06-02- 2002 demanding payment of the cheques amount and thereafter, complaint was filed. On behalf of complainant, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and 20 documents were marked. On behalf of accused, accused himself was examined as D.W.1 & another independent witness was examined as D.W.2 and no documents are marked. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and out of fine amount realized, Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad and learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on a reappraisal of the evidence, confirmed the conviction by modifying the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months and confirmed fine amount. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
5. Point:-According to first respondent, the revision petitioner borrowed money from him by way of business transactions on several occasions and towards discharge issued three cheques and the same were dishonoured. The complainant as P.W.1 reiterated his case in support of the complaint averments. According to revision petitioner, he issued Exs.P3 to P5-cheques to the complainant towards security purpose for extending credit facility during the year 1996 & 1997 and that after stopping business transaction, he did not take back the said cheques from the complainant and those cheques were pressed into service. To support his plea, the accused examined one witness. Though accused contended that cheques were pressed into service, he failed to substantiate the same. Learned trial Judge elaborately discussed evidence of witness and accepted the version of complainant. Learned appellate Judge confirmed the findings of trial Court as there are no incorrect findings. On a scrutiny of judgments of trial Court and appellate Court, I am of the view that both Courts have rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner.
6. Now coming to sentence part, trial Court sentenced the petitioner to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, but the appellate Court modified the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months and confirmed the conviction and fine amount. Now it is submitted on behalf of both parties that both complainant and accused have no differences and the money due to the complainant is totally paid. Learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail for some days and he has paid the fine amount and by considering the change of circumstances, the period already undergone may be treated as punishment in view of the fact that both complainant and revision petitioner have dissolved their disputes. Other side advocate has no objection for the proposal of the advocate for revision petitioner. Considering the submissions of both sides advocates and also the fact that both parties have no disputes as on this day, I feel that the period already undergone can be treated as sentence of imprisonment besides the fine amount as punishment.
7. For these reasons, revision is dismissed confirming the conviction, but the sentence of six months imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone while confirming the fine amount.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:14.07.2014 mrb