Revision against conviction under Section 138 NI Act for cheque dishonour. High Court found no error in evidence appreciation or findings, dismissing the revision and confirming the lower courts' conviction and sentence.
Criminal Revision dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed; steps taken to apprehend the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1910 OF 2006.
Between: Avvula Saidulu … Revision Petitioner/Accused V/s. G.Venkateshwar Rao & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant
Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Sri Sreedhar Counsel for Respondents : Sri M.Ramchandra Reddy for R- 1 Public Prosecutor for R-2
The court made the following : [order follows]
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1910 OF 2006
O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision is against judgment dated 18/10/2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2005 on the file of IIAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereunder judgment dated 01/04/2005 in CC.No. 501 of 2004 on the file of VII-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
First Respondent filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging that Revision Petitioner borrowed Rs.60,000/- on 19/3/2004 and executed a promissory note, promising to repay with interest @ 18% p.a. and failed to repay the amount inspite of repeated demands. Thereafter, Revision Petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 766507, dated 22/4/2004 for Rs.40,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Guntur, towards part-payment of the pronote debt. When the cheque is presented in Canara Bank, the same was returned with endorsement “insufficient funds”. Revision Petitioner received legal notice but failed to repay the amount, therefore, he has committed offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. On these allegations, trial court examined complainant as PW-1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. On behalf of accused, DW-1 is
examined and no documents are marked.
4. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found Revision Petitioner guilty for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Guntur and IIAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, on a re-appraisal of evidence, dismissed appeal by confirming conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of
the courts below are legal, proper and correct ?
7. P O I N T : According to complainant, Revision Petitioner borrowed Rs.60,000/- on 19/4/2004 and executed a promissory note and in partial discharge of pronote debt, issued a cheque for Rs.40,000/- and when it is presented for collection, it was dishonoured with endorsement “insufficient funds”. To prove the same, complainant as PW-1 deposed to the complaint averments and through him promissory note is marked as Ex.P-1 and the dishonoured cheque is marked as Ex.P-2. He deposed that when the cheque was presented in Canara Bank, Chandramouli nagar on 22/4/2004, it was
returned with a memo that funds are insufficient. This returned memo is marked as Ex.P-4. He deposed that he issued a legal notice on 01/5/2004 informing the Revision Petitioner about dishonour of the cheque and also demanding payment of amount covered by the dishonoured cheque and that Revision Petitioner received notice under Ex.P-6 and failed to comply the demand made in the notice. He deposed that Revision Petitioner is liable for punishment. He was cross-examined on behalf of Revision Petitioner and it was suggested to PW-1 that he introduced Revision Petitioner to one Sri G. Srihari Rao and at that time four blank cheques duly signed by Revision Petitioner and a promissory note were collected. So from the suggestion to PW-1, the defence of Revision Petitioner is that one Sri Hari Rao collected four blank cheques and promissory note from him and one such cheque and the promissory note are pressed into service but this defence is not substantiated with any other evidence though DW-1 is examined, his evidence is of no use to support the defence of Revision Petitioner. Both trial court and appellate court have considered evidence of PW-1 and documents Exs.P-1 to P-6 and held that Ex.P-2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that Revision Petitioner has committed offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by the trial court or by the
appellate court. I also do not find any wrong findings in the judgments of the courts below. Both trial court and appellate court have elaborately considered the evidence of DW-1 and disbelieved the same in view of the clinching and convincing evidence of PW-1, which is supported and corroborated with documentary evidence, Exs.P-1 to
P-6.
8. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the view that both courts have rightly convicted Revision Petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts
below.
9. For the above reasons, Criminal Revision is dismissed as devoid of merits, confirming conviction and sentence. Trial court shall take steps to apprehend Revision Petitioner to undergo un-expired
portion of sentence.
___________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
04/04/2014 I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1910 OF 2006
Circulation No. Date:04/04/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, proper and correct?
Whether the trial and appellate courts rightly appreciated the evidence and disbelieved the defence regarding blank cheques?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Avvula Saidulu
G. Venkateshwar Rao
S. RAVI KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
