Jada Ramakrishna v. The State of Telangana
Case brief
What is this about?
In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C concerning cheque dishonour, this court held that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 N.I. Act regarding consideration and debt discharge. Consequently, the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence by lower courts stand affirmed and the revision is dismissed.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.227 OF 2017
ORDER :
This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C questioning the propriety, legality and regularity of the sentence imposed in Crl.A.No.161 of 2015 dated 29.12.2016, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.562 of 2013 dated 16.09.2015, finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’), imposing rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.12,00,000/with default sentence.
The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act alleging that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,00/- for his family necessities from the respondent. On receipt of the said amount, the petitioner executed a promissory note Ex.P-1 on 24.05.2012 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, either to the respondent or to his order as and when demanded. On repeated demands made by the complainant, accused had issued a cheque bearing No.026323 dated 28.03.2013 for Rs.12,00,000/- drawn on I.C.I.C.I Bank, Khammam towards discharge of the debt due under the promissory note Ex.P-1. On presentation of the cheque for encashment with the collecting bank i.e. Karnataka Bank limited, the cheque was returned on 28.03.2013 along with cheque return memo Ex.P-3 informing dishonour of cheque on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter the respondent issued statutory
MSM,J Crl.R.C.No.227 of 2017
2
notice dated 08.04.2013 Ex.P-4 to the petitioner through registered post with acknowledgment due. Ex.P-5 is the postal receipt and the notice was served on the accused on 15.04.2013 and Ex.P-6 is the acknowledgment. Inspite of receipt of such notice, the accused did not pay the amount covered under cheque. Therefore, filed private complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding consideration and discharge of debt under Section 138 N.I. Act when no evidence rebutting the statutory presumption was
Whether the respondent is required to prove capacity to lend when the accused fails to rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) N.I. Act.
Whether the cheque was issued solely for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt excluded from the presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
PETITIONER
- respondent
RESPONDENT
Coram
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLRC/227/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court