Dismissed

T. Santosh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Sept 2023CRLRC/2551/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court convicted and sentenced a petitioner under Section 138 N.I. Act for issuing bounced cheques. The Court held that the accused failed to rebut the legal presumption of a valid debt and that the defense regarding the lack of a money-lender license was untenable.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence against the petitioner were confirmed.

T. Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE TIIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} i ATHYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

AL REV! N CASE : 2551 0F

¶6

Revision filed under Section^{3971401of CrPC to set aside/against the} judgment dt.16-02-2018 made in Crl.A No.^4BG ot^{2017 on the file of the} court of the Spl. Judge^{for Economic Offences -Cum-Vlll Addl.,Metropolitan} Sessions Judge at Hyderabad^{confirming the} iudgment^passedin C.C.No.2O2\2O16^{(old CC No. 228 of 2016) dt.O7-04-2017on the file of the} court of the lll Spl.^{MagistrateatHyderabad'and acquit the} petitioner/accused in the interest of^justice.

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Santosh Kumar, Occ.^{Colour painter,PJo. 11-1-1293' Afzal Sagar'} Seetha Ram Bagh,^HYderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND

¶10

1 . The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of} Judicature at Hyderabad

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

2 Gopal Singh, Occ. Business,^{Rlo.13-1-514126/1, Ganga Bowli,} Mangalhat, Hyderabad^-006

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANT

l i I I I i I

I i Il I

1A NO: 2 OF 2018

Petition^,under Section 151 CPC prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment made in Crl. A. No. 486,ot 2Q17 Dt. 16-022018 on the file of the Court of the Spl. Judge for Economic Offences -CumVlll Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad and confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.202l2016 (old CC no. 228 ot 2016) dt.07-042017 on the file of the court of the lll Spl Magistrate at Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Crl. R.C. in the interest of^justice

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI SRINATH C

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISIO CASE No.2551O F 2018

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

In spite of listiog the mafter under^{the caption for orders,} nonc appeared for the revisiorr^{pcdrioncr or the respondcntNo.2.} 'fherefore, this revision case is rakcn up for determination on merits' 2. This revision is filed assailing^the iudgment^{dated16.02-2018} in Crl.A.No.486 of 2017 passed by^{thc learned Special} Judgc^for Economic offences-cum-VlII^{Adclitional Metropolitan Scssions} Judge,^Hvderabad.

¶25

In the impugncd^{judgmcnt, thc} iud6'mcnt^{of c.n'icti.nundcr} Sccuon 138 of the^{Ncgotiabte Instrumcrrts;\ct, 1881 ([<rr short thc} 'N.1. Act) and sentence o[ simplc^{imprisonmcntof [trur trttrrlrhsrnd} t() pay cornPensation of^{lts.2,00,000/within a pcriod oftrvo} months, in default, simple^{imprisonmento[ four monthshas bccn} affirmed.

¶26

'Ihe rclcvant facts in bricf arc that in thc bacligrotrnd ol'

¶27

rhc tcvistrtn accluaintance and rcqucst r'l'

¶28

1-rc^{ritionc r/ appcllant/accused (bcreinrtltur nfLD.,,d /0 tt.t '/ht trtttr.tl')tl'rc}

¶29

¶30

respondent No.2/coorplairanr. (herenaJnr nfotn;rl^to at 'lhe^compkinant') on 12.12.2014 advanced Rs.2,00,000i- against dre^pronissory note/Ex.P8 and original registered agf,eerrent of sale cum general power o[ attorncy/ I])x.Pi 2. r\s the accused failed to^rcpay.the cornplainant got issued legal noticc on 18.1 i .201 5 demanding to repay the arnount.^'fhereupon, the accused issued two cheques bcaring.Nos.514253 a.od 514254/Exs.P1 and P2 for Rs. 1,00,000/cach drawn on State Bank of India. Nampaily Braach, l-lydetabad with a rcquest to pr('sent the same in the second week of February, 201(:. Accordinglv, thc ct>rnplainant presented the chegues/Ers:P- l and P-2in ..P. N{ahesh Coopetative Urban lJank Limitcd, I}e.rpm Bazar Rranch. l>ut thcv rvcre rerurned for insuFficient funds on 11.02.2016 under rerurn mernos,/Exs.P4 and 5. In consequence, thc complainant g<it issued sratutory notice/Ex.P.9. Even then as thc accused remaincd silent, the complainant lodged ptivate complaint. i.'. .\ ltcr tluc procccdings, thc complaint casc was registered and altcr: rluc inquin', thc I II Spr:cial l''Iagistrate, Hvderabad convictcd thc accusetl undcr Scction 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencecl him ar; mcntioncd supra. Aggricved thercby, the revision petiuoncr

¶31

¶32

preferred appeal vide Cd.A. No.486 of 2017. In impugned judgment, the appellate Court confimed the conviction and sentence imposed by the- trial Court. Thus this revision by the accused.

¶33

In the grounds o[ revision, the accused contended that the trial and appellate Courts have failed to properly consider the materials on record and should have observed that the cheques which were issued aS security to one Ram Mohan were misused by the complainant and there is no material evidence on record to substant-iatc the complainant's plea. T'he trial Court ought tr-r have held rhat, as the complainant had advanced loan on intercst, he should have money lenders license and in absence o[ such license, thc alleged loan is legally unenforceable and the.prosecuuon under 138 oI the N.I. Act is not maintainable. Even otherwise considering the defence put Forth by the accused should have held that thc prcsumprion has becn rebutted.

¶34

I havc carcFully pcrused the matcrials on record.

¶35

The rccord rs indicating that the accused in^{crossc\Amlnatl(,n}

¶36

of thc complainant as P.W.1 suggestecl that thc^{chcqucs/l'.xs.l)1and}

¶37

¶38

l)2 were obtained as thc s.curiry in regarti ro purchase of land properry from one Ram M.tharr and they were fraudulendy pressed into service in the compleint. This clainr in defeoce itseif is establishing that the chequc rvas drawn on the account of accused anci rt Contains his signaturc.^'l-hor.rgh the accused befbre the rial Court had contestcd on rhe aspccr of sen ice o[ statutorv notice. that gtound has not bcen raiscd in rcvision.

¶39

'fhat bcing rhc posioon, it shall be held that the complainanr had established Prime faae case and the presumptions under Section 139 of the N.I. Act shall corne a[ve in favour of thc complainant. It ls fatly semled that, the presumpdon covers existence of legally enfotceablc debt. (St:e Ranqcppa I't. Sai l\4ohant" and 'Basalitgappa I.'t Mudiba.caPPi:)

¶40

10.^'l'he materral dcfcnce of the accuscd is that there is no legaliy enforceable debt and as rhc c()mplainant advanced the amount on interest, he should p()sscss mone',. lcndcrs liccnse.

¶41

11 Ar thc outsct, crccpt vague plca that the cheques were issued

¶42

as secufl $, no parucul:rrs rnuch less anv cvidence has been placed by I ' 12oto1tt (2019) 5^scc iL't^au its

I I

the accused to substantiate.^{Furthet,the accused for the reasons} best known to him had not raised the^{issue o[ moneylendersl-icense} before the rial Court. Even^{otherwise the complainant's case is that} the uansaction is hand^{loan and it is not the accused'sversionthat} he availed loan in money^{lendingbusinessof the complainant.The} money lenders license becomes^{relevantwhen the complainantis} money lender and the transacdon^{is part of business of money} lending. Additionatlv,^{no law specifiesthat eveo for advancing hand} loan, moncy lcnders lrcense^{is mandatory' Therefore,the contention} o[ the accused on this^{asPect is untenableand falling short to rcbut} the presumpuons.

¶47

12.^'fhus no impropriety or^{ilegaliry is foundin the conclusions} drarvn bv the trial and^{the appellate Courts and in absenceof anv} facr or circumstancc for^{reconsideration,the convictronand} sentcncc rccorded^{against the accused deserves confirmation} l{csultantlr', the crimirral^{revisioncase fails on merit and liablctt I bc} drsr-r-risscd

¶48

In tl-rc result, thc^{CriminalRevision Caseis dismisscd}

¶49

¶50

As a se<1ucl, misccllancous pctiti()ns, pcnding if any, shall stand

¶51

closed.

¶52

SD/- M.RAT'ANAKRISHNA DEPUW^REGISTRAR

Etr'

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

to'r. ,n" Sol. Judge for Economic offences -Cum- Vlll Addl" Metropolitan

¶57

Sessions Judge^{at HYderabad}

¶58

ine tll^{Spl. Migistrate at Hyderabad}

¶59

i. cj""'dii.^{sCttntNerncAdvocate toPucl} -^.. 4. Two Two ccs^{to the PUBLtc b-nijslCuron the PUBLtc b-nijslCuron PUBLtc b-nijslCuron b-nijslCuronOGi'}

¶60