THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1167 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.1167 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 03-08-2007 in Crl.A.No.73/2007 on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada whereunder judgment dated 08-03-2007 in C.C.No.408/2004 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada was confirmed.
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 two cheques; one for Rs.11,333/-, dated 10-06-2004, and another for Rs.17,000/- on 15-06-2004, drawn on State Bank of India, Kakinada and when these two cheques were presented for collection, both cheques were returned on the ground that there are no sufficient funds in the account. On that, a statutory notice was issued on 27-07-2004 demanding payment of the cheques amount and thereafter, complaint was filed. On behalf of complainant, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and eight documents are marked. On behalf of accused, one witness was 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 nine months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-while granting a total compensation of Rs.56,666/-. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the Court of VII 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. 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 the judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
5. Point:-According to second respondent, the revision petitioner borrowed money from him on two occasions on promissory notes and towards partial discharge, he issued two cheques and both 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 blank cheques and those cheques were pressed into service.
To support his plea, the accused examined one witness. 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 nine months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- 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 he has paid the fine amount 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 fine amount and compensation as punishment.
7. For these reasons, revision is dismissed confirming the conviction, but the sentence of nine months imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone while confirming the fine amount and 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