HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1369 OF 2007 Dated 17-9-2014 Between:
M/s. KAH Metal Sections Pvt.Ltd., and another.
..Petitioners.
And:
M/s. Surana Strips Limited and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1369 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 27-3-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.307 of 2005 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Secunderabad whereunder judgment dated 28-9-2005 in C.C.No.758 of 2000 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: First respondent herein filed a complaint before XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, alleging that the revision petitioners issued two cheques of Rs.50,000/- each towards financial liability and those cheques were present for collection, but they were dishonoured and thereafter, he got issued a statutory notice on 10-4-2000 demanding payment of the dishonoured cheques but the revision petitioner in spite of receiving notice neither paid the amount nor replied and thereby, committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
On these allegations, one witness was examined and 18 documents were marked on behalf of complainant-first respondent herein and no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of revision petitioners.
On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced A.1 to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and sentenced A.2 to suffer one year imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred appeal to the Metropolitan Sessions Court and the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed conviction but reduced imprisonment of one year given to A.2 to ten months. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
When this case is listed on 6-8-2014, as no one appeared on behalf of both parties, it was adjourned by three weeks and it is again listed on 10-9-2014 and on that day also, no one appeared and therefore, it is directed to be listed to this day under the caption of orders and in spite of that no one appeared.
As seen from the grounds, the contention of revision petitioners is that both trial court and appellate court erred in convicting the revision petitioners. It is further contended that P.W.1 admitted certain things in the cross- examination and the same was not considered by trial court and appellate court.
It is also contended that complainant failed to prove that there exists legally enforceable debt and that the cheques were issued in discharge of such legally enforceable debt and therefore, ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted and the judgments of the courts below are to be set aside.
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, revision petitioners issued two cheques towards discharge of their liability due to complainant and both the cheques are dishonoured and thereby, they committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
To prove the same, complainant is examined as P.W.1 and he deposed that accused purchased material from complainant’s company and towards payment of the material purchased, two cheques dated 16-3-2000 for Rs.50,000/- each were issued and when the cheques were presented for collection, they were dishonoured on the ground of ‘limit cancelled”. He further deposed that there is a running credit account in the complainant’s company and the outstanding balance was Rs.2,23,841- 50ps. Through P.W.1 statement of account relating to the material purchased are marked as Ex.P.17 and the certified copy of invoices are marked as Exs.P.18 to P.22. This P.W.1 was cross-examined on behalf of accused and according to revision petitioners, complainant made important admissions and those were not considered by the trial court and appellate court.
As seen from the judgment of the trial court, the learned trial judge referred to the cross-examination of P.W.1 and held that the points that were elicited during cross-examination are more beneficial to the complainant rather than the accused.
As seen from the material, the points that were elicited in the cross-examination were in respect of transactions that were reflected in the statement of account for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1999 and the objections raised in this revision were also raised before trial court and appellate court and both courts after examining the evidence of P.W.1 with reference to the objections, negatived the points urged on behalf of revision petitioners. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. As rightly held by the courts below, when P.W.1 deposed about the financial liability of the revision petitioners which is supported and corroborated with the documentary evidence, there is no evidence on behalf of accused rebutting the same. When the complainant has discharged initial burden by proving cheques were issued in discharge of financial liability, the burden is on the revision petitioners to rebut the same but there is absolutely no evidence on behalf of accused.
Considering these aspects, both trial court and appellate court have found accused guilty and I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial court and appellate court.
On a scrutiny of material, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings and the revision is devoid of merits.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of appellate court.
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 17-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1369 OF 2007 Dated 17-9-2014