THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.523 of 2007 Date:16.04.2014 Between:
Rachamalli Ramesh . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.523 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 10-04-2007 in Crl.A.No.7/2005 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore whereunder judgment dated 15-12-2004 in C.C.No.3/2003 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
First respondent herein filed a complaint against revision petitioner alleging that the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant on 25-02-2000 and executed a demand promissory note and later he paid Rs.25,000/- and failed to repay the balance amount of Rs.75,000/-. When the complainant demanded to discharge the loan amount, the revision petitioner pleaded his inability on the ground that he sustained heavy loss in his business and agreed to pay only Rs.50,000/- and accordingly issued three post dated cheques for Rs.15,000/- dated 25-06-2002, Rs.15,000/- dated 25-07-2002 and Rs.20,000/- dated 25-08- 2002 drawn on State Bank of India, Fathekhanpet Branch, Nellore and when the said cheques were presented for collection, they were dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice, but the revision petitioner managed to get the notice returned. On these allegations, trial Court examined complainant as P.W.1 and on his behalf seven documents are marked. On behalf of accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and documents Exs.D1 to D9 are marked. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Nellore and I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore on a reappraisal of evidence dismissed the appeal. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. When the matter is listed, none appeared for the revision petitioner on 27-03-2014 and it is posted “for orders” to yesterday. As the matter is not reached yesterday, it is listed today. Today also no one is appeared for the revision petitioner and the first respondent. Therefore, the matter is decided on the basis of material available on record.
4. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
5. Point:- According to complainant, revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1 lakh from him on 25-02-2002 and towards partial discharge of the loan amount, he issued three cheques for Rs.50,000/- and all the cheques are dishonoured when presented for collection. According to defence version, he has not issued any cheques to the first respondent in connection with any loan, but the cheques were issued in the business transactions with one Sathish who is the son of the complainant who did business under the name and style of R.R Agencies, Marketing, Nellore. Complainant as P.W.1 deposed that the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and executed a promissory note and subsequently, he paid Rs.25,000/- and failed to pay back the remaining Rs.75,000/- and when he insisted for repayment, the revision petitioner expressed his inability to pay Rs.75,000/-, but agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, he issued three cheques i.e., one cheque for Rs.15,0000/- and other cheque for Rs.15,000/- and third cheque for Rs.20,000/-, but all the cheques are dishonoured when presented for collection. According to P.W.1, the accused executed a letter on 10-03-2002 confirming issue of three cheques towards discharge of Rs.50,000/- while taking back the promissory note. This letter is marked as Ex.P1. This Ex.P1 is in the own handwriting of the revision petitioner. The contents of Ex.P1 confirms issue of Exs.P2 to P4-cheques towards discharge of amount due to the complainant. When there is clear-cut admission on the part of the revision petitioner in Ex.P1, the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 contending that the cheques were issued in connection with business transactions of one Ramarao and Satish cannot be accepted. Both trial Court and appellate Court have thoroughly examined evidence on record and discarded the evidence of revision petitioner and his witnesses and rightly convicted the revision petitioner. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or incorrect findings in the judgments of the Courts below and both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence. There are no incorrect findings on any of material aspects in the judgments of the Courts below.
6. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and the revision is liable to dismissed as devoid of merits.
7. In the result, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confining the conviction and sentence.
8. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:16.04.2014 mrb