THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1161 of 2007 Date:14.07.2014 Between:
Mutyala Venkateswara Rao . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1161 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 23-08-2007 in Crl.A.No.276/2006 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada whereunder judgment dated 31-10-2006 in C.C.No.143/2005 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada was modified to the extent of fine amount, but confirmed the conviction and imprisonment besides compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that second 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 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 01-12-2003 and another one lakh on 15-12- 2003 and in partial discharge of the debt, he issued three cheques; (i) for Rs.11,333/-, dated 10-07-2004, (ii) for Rs.17,000/- on 15-07-2004, and (iii) for Rs.40,000/- on 13- 07-2004, drawn on State Bank of India, Kakinada & Andhra Bank, Cinema Road Branch, Kakinada respectively and when these three cheques were presented for collection, al the cheques were returned on the ground that there are no sufficient funds in the account. On that, a statutory notice was issued on 19-01-2005 demanding payment of the cheques amount, for which, a reply was given on 31-01- 2005 disputing notice allegations and thereafter, complaint was filed. On behalf of complainant, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and 11 documents are marked. On behalf of accused, four witnesses are examined 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 eight months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,500/- while granting a total compensation of Rs.68,333/-. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Kakindada and learned District & Sessions Judge, on a reappraisal of the evidence, confirmed the conviction & sentence and also the compensation, but deleted the 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 second respondent, the revision petitioner borrowed money from her on two occasions on promissory notes and towards partial discharge, he issued three cheques and all the cheques were dishonoured.
The complainant as P.W.1 reiterated his case in support of the complaint averments. According to revision petitioner, he along with P.W.1 did finance business and in that connection, his signatures were obtained on around 50 cheques and those cheques were pressed into service.
To support his plea, the accused besides himself examined three more witnesses. Though accused contended that blank 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 the 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 eight months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,500/- besides compensation, but the appellate Court deleted the fine amount and confirmed the conviction & imprisonment besides compensation. 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 also the compensation 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 Advocates of both sides 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 compensation as punishment.
7. For these reasons, revision is dismissed confirming the conviction, but the sentence of eight months imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone while confirming the compensation.
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