IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY THE NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1651 OF 2007 Between:
Pinjerla Venkateswara Rao … Revision Petitioner/Appellant Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP … Respondents/Complainant & Anr.
Counsel for Revision Petitioner : Sri G. Simhadri Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 None appeared for R-2 The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1651 OF 2007 O R D E R :
This Revision is against judgment dated 17/09/2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2006 on the file of Sessions Judge, Ananthapur district, whereunder judgment dated 07/08/2006 in CC.No.
20 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur district, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are as follows:
Second Respondent herein filed a private complaint for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram alleging that he is doing business in silk sarees in Dharmavaram and accused used to purchase sarees from him on credit basis and towards discharge of money due to the complainant, accused issued five cheques for different amounts and when the said cheques were presented for collection, they were dishonoured with endorsement ‘payment is stopped’. On that legal notice was issued but inspite of legal notice, amounts were not paid within fifteen days, and therefore, Revision Petitioner committed offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. On these allegations, trial court examined PWs 1 and 2 on behalf of complainant and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and Ex.X-1 true copy of extract for OBC Register. No witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused.
4. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found Revision Petitioner guilty for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer one year Rigorous Imprisonment with compensation of Rs.53,175-00 [Rs.Fifty three thousand one hundred and seventyfive only]. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions, Ananthapur and the learned Sessions Judge, on a re-appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present Criminal Revision is preferred.
5. When this matter was listed on 11/08/2014, no one appeared and this matter was directed to be listed under the caption, “for orders” to this day, in spite of that, no one appeared on behalf of Revision Petitioner.
6. Heard Advocate for second respondent/complainant.
7. Advocate for second respondent submitted that compensation awarded is not paid and both courts have rightly convicted Revision Petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Revision is “whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper ?”
9. P O I N T : According to complainant, Revision Petitioner issued Exs.P-1 to P-5 cheques towards discharge of amount due to complainant and those cheques were returned as per Ex.P-6 and P7 memos and that Revision Petitioner failed to pay the amounts covered by cheques inspite of issuing legal notice.
10. As seen from the grounds urged in the revision, it is contended that both courts committed error in convicting Revision Petitioner and that trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence. According to the grounds urged in the revision, both courts failed to notice that complainant has no right to file complaint, as he failed to produce proof that he is the partner of firm. But as seen from the judgments, this objection was raised before trial court as well as appellate court and both courts have negatived the objection while considering evidence of PW-1 and Ex.P-14 firm certificate in CC.No.463 of 2002. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or appellate court.
11. As seen from the evidence on record, revision petitioner is liable to pay money to the complainant towards credit transaction of purchase of silk sarees from the complainant and in discharge of such liability, he issued Exs.P-1 to P-5 cheques on different dates for different amounts and all the cheques were dishonoured due to stop payment. When the complainant discharged his burden that cheques were issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, the burden is on Revision Petitioner to rebut legal presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. But as seen from the record, Revision Petitioner has not produced any evidence to rebut legal presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and both trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted Revision Petitioner while appreciating evidence of complainant and documents Exs.P-1 to P-11. Trial court also granted compensation of Rs. 53,175-00 to the complainant. But from the submission of Advocate for second respondent that the said amount is also not paid by Revision Petitioner. The ‘scope’ and ‘jurisdiction’ of Revisional Court is very limited and only when there is apparent illegality committed by the courts below, Revisional Court has to interfere. But as seen from the material on record, both courts have not committed any illegality. On the other hand, they have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Further there are absolutely no incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below and their judgments are based on oral and documentary evidence.
12. On a scrutiny of material on record, I am of the view that judgments of the courts below are based on sound reasoning and they are well considered judgments and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same.
13. For the above reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings and this Criminal Revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed, confirming conviction and sentence. Trial court shall take steps to apprehend Revision Petitioner/accused to undergo un-expired portion of sentence.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
09/09/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1651 OF 2007 Circulation No. 18 Date: 09/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43