HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1396 OF 2007 Dated 26-9-2014 Between:
M/s.Shekar T.V. and Video, Mumbai and another.
..Petitioners.
And:
The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1396 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 8-10-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.333 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad whereunder judgment dated 31-8-2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.1317 of 2003, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Second respondent herein filed a complaint before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that there is an agreement between the parties and in pursuance of the said agreement, cheques dated 25-6-2003 and 23-8-2003 for Rs.25,000/- each drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, was issued towards payment of the amount and when the cheque was presented for collection in Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad, the same was returned on 27-8-2003 with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”, after receipt of the said intimation, complainant presented another cheque for collection and the same was also returned with endorsement with “Insufficient Funds” and thereafter, he issued consolidated notice dated 20-9-2003 calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under the dishonoured cheques, but, the accused failed to comply the same.
On these allegations, one witness was examined and eleven documents were marked on behalf of complainant and no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of accused.
On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced A.2 who is representing A.1 to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Hyderabad and IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on a reappraisal of evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Now, aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
It is contended that the complainant has to prove ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and trial court wrongly convicted the revision petitioners and the same is confirmed by appellate court without any appreciation of evidence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for second respondent submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the material on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
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:
There is no dispute with regard to business transaction between the parties which is under an agreement marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that accused issued cheques dated 25-6-
2003 and 23-8-2003 for Rs.25,000/- each and when the same were presented for collection, they were returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds” and in spite of issuing of notice, the accused failed to pay the amount. In the cross-examination, except putting suggestions, nothing could be elicited from him to discard his testimony. As seen from the material on record, it is clear that Exs.P.2 and P.3 cheques were issued only in discharge of legally enforceable debt and both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence and that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court and appellate court.
Now at the time of arguments, it is represented that amount covered by the cheques is already paid back to the complainant and therefore, some lenient view may be taken with regard to sentence imposed against the petitioner.
From the submissions of learned counsel for the revision petitioners, A.2 was in jail for seven days and paid fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and deposited compensation awarded. It is submitted as the cheque amount is paid, the period already undergone may be treated as punishment besides fine amount paid, by setting aside the order for payment of compensation.
Considering the facts of the case, nature of offence and the fact that subsequent to conviction, the revision petitioner paid back the cheque amount, I feel that the request of the advocate for petitioner can be considered.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but sentence of imprisonment of six months is modified to the period already undergone while confirming fine amount already paid and compensation awarded by the trial court is hereby set aside.
Since compensation awarded to complainant is set aside, petitioner is at liberty to get refund of compensation amount, if deposited.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 26-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1396 OF 2007 Dated 26-9-2014