Partly allowed

Kande Sammaiah, Karimnagar., v. Md.Abdul Hussain, Karimnagar and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC12 Mar 2024CRLRC/115/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging convictions and sentences for cheque dishonour. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings and directed the petitioner/appellant to deposit the fine amount within one year to have the complainant withdraw their amount, without explicitly acquitting the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 1,20,00/- with the trial Court within one year to enable the complainant to withdraw the amount. Pending compliance, the impugned judgment stands. Case dispo

Kande Sammaiah, Karimnagar., Vs Md.Abdul Hussain… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE^{HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY'^{rHE rwELFrH D4Y![l!]RcH} TWO^{THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOIJR}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E'V' VENUGOPAL}

¶5

cRl^{MINALREVISI ONCASENO:1't5OF2016}

¶6

Cririinal^{RevisionCase under Section 397 and4O1 of CrPC aggrieved by} the Judoment^{dated 14-12-zt1;';;sJl;-c'i'Appeat'No'14 of 2014on the file} of the iourt^{of rhe V Addl. "S;"i;;;luog", fjtlry**,prefered asainstthe} Judoment^{dt: 09-01-2014p"Ili-i"C-'C'N"'1bo ot zOtion the file of th€ Court ot} irre^{"Speciattvlagistrateat Karimnagar'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kande Sammaiah,^{S/o'Raiaiah,Fl/o. H.No'10-5.367 (old,10-5.699(New)Kishan} Nagar,^Karimnagar

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED.

¶10

AND

¶11

Md.Abdul^{Hussain,S/o Abdul Rasheed Fl/o' H No6-6-15' Arnbedkar Nagar'} Karimnagar,

¶12

2 The State^{of Telangana,Rep by its PublicProsecutor' t'ligh Court of} Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

l.A NO:¹ oF2 1 CRLR M o 54 F 't6

¶15

Petition under^{Section 151CPC prayingthqt'in ttrl circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in suppo( ;; ih; p"[i6' ine !t1sf.courtmav be pleasedto} susoend rhe^{order of} ""n,.n"J^{oi'ii-nJi.p*irain _cc- No.1 oo of 2012 on rhefire of} soecial Masistrate,^{xarimnag'a;';;;#ilmJinca'n'uo'taot 2012 on the file of} v Addl. Sessions^{Judge,n"'i'i'n'=g"i dt'f 4'12'2015pendingdisposalof the above} Crl.RC.

¶16

Counsel for^{the Petitioner(s):SRl'P RAVI KIRAN}

¶17

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'1: Assistant Public Prosecutor(TG)}

¶18

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶19

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI WSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL^{REVISIONcAsE No.115oF 2016}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present Criminal^{Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the} judgment dated 14.12.2O15^{in CriminalAppealNo'14 of 2Ol4 ort} the lile^{of the learned v AdditionalSessions Judge, at Karimnagar} (for short, "the^{appellateCourt") in confrrmingthe judgment} datedog.0l.2ol4inC.C.No.lOoof2ol2onthefrleofthelearned Special Magistrate,^{at Karimnagar (for short, 'the trial Court")'}

¶24

Heard Mr.^{P. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner} and Mr. Vizarath^{Ali,learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor} appearing^{for respondent No'2State}

¶25

The brief facts^{of thecase are thatrespondent} No. 1 /complainant^{and petitioner/ accused were knownto each} other. Out^{ofsuch acquaintance,accused requested the} complainant^{to lend anamountof Rs.1,2O,OO0/- to meethis} necessities.^{Upon such request, the complainantlent an amount} of Rs.¹ ,2O,OOO/^{- to the accusedand the accusedpromised to} repay the^{said amount as and when required by the complainant'} The accused issued a^{post dated cheque bearing No'857940} dated 11. 10.2010^{pertaining to the accountmaintained in State}

¶26

¶27

Bank of Hyderabad, Karimnagar. After some time, the complainant requested the accused to repay the amount due. Then, the accused asked the complainant to present the said . cheque with the banker

¶28

On presentation, the sairl cheque was returned unpaid due to 'insufficiency of funds". The complainant intimated about the said dishonour to the accused. But, ttre accused requested the complainant to represent the said cheque after some time. Therefore, the complainant waited for three months and presented the cheque once again. But the said cheque was again returned unpaid for the reason "insufficiency of funds" Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. But the accused got the notice returned as "unclaimedn. Hence, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act').

¶29

The trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of 1n the Nl Act and directed hirn to pay fine of Rs. 1,20,00O/default, to serve simple imprisonment for ttrree months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.

¶30

¶31

The appellate^{Court vide judgment cited supra' dismissed} the appeal^{confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court'} Assailing^{the same, the presentRevision'}

¶32

Learned^{counsel for the petitionercontended that the trial} Court as^{well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the} evidence^{availableon record in properperspectiveand passed} their respective^{judgments' Therefore'he seeks to set aside the} impugned^judgment.

¶33

Learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor submittedthat the} trial court^{as well as the appellate court, uponappreciating the} evidence^{available on record in right perspective, passed their} respective^{judgmentsand the interference of this Court is} unwarranted.^{Therefore, he seeksto dismiss the Revision'}

¶34

g. On behalf^{of the prosecution' the trial Courtexamined} PWs.l to^{3 and marked trxs'P1to P5 On beha'lf of the defence'} RWs.l to^{3 were examinedand Exs'Rl to R3 were marked' Upon} careful scrutiny^{of the oral and documentaryevidence, the tiial} court found^{that the complainantprovecl the existenceof legally} enforceabledebtthroughPw2.Thedishonourofchequewas established^{by the evidence of PW3-banker'Whenthe cheque} .-- *woS bounced a legal^{notiqg u'as issued to the accused'As per}

¶35

¶36

Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, there is deemed^serviceof notice upon the accused when the notice was^returned unclaimed. Even though accused contended that he issued^the blank chcque as a security for employment of^{his trrother-in-law} RW2, but the accused failed to issue reply to the legal^notice given by the complainant. Moreover, accused ought to have demanded for return of the cheque from the complainant^when RW2 left the job. But accused failed to resort to such steps.^So, the accused failed to probablise his defence by adducing evidence. Thus, the complainant proved that tJle accused^issued the cheque towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Hence, ttre trial Court rendered the^judgment cited supra.

¶37

In the appeal, the appellate Court uPon re-appreciating the evidence available on record observed that the evidence of PWs. I and 2 corroborated with each other and nothing was elicited in their cross-examination to discard such evidence. In the crossexamination of PW3, he stated that he received Ex Pl cheque from SBH King Branch for collection on 22.03.2011 and on^the same day, he issued cheque return memo evincing dishonour^of the cheque. Thus, the presumption that the cheque was issuedⁱⁿ discharge of legally enforceable debt^was found to be^proved.

¶38

'-/t-

¶39

¶40

On the other^{hand, in the cross-examinationof RWl' he} categorically^{admittedthat he did not file any complaintwhen} PW1 did^{not return the cheque. If really the accusedgave a blank} cheque^{in. relation to the job of RW2, he would have insisted for} return of^{blankchequewhen RW2 left his job' Moreover'accused} failed to^{give any notice to the complainantfor return of the} cheque. Therefore,^{the appellateCourt found that the evidenceof} RWs. 1 to 3 is^{not suflicientto rebut the presumptionunder} Sectionl38ofNlActandthus,theappellateCourtconfirmedthe findings of the^{trialCourt and dismissedthe appealvide} judgment cited suPra.

¶41

In the^{present case on hand, both the Courts held that the} petitioner/accusedwasguiltyfortheoffencei-rnderSectionl38 of NI Act, which^{frnding,in my consideredvier'v,does not call for} anyinterference,intheexerciseofrevisionaljurisdictionunder Section 397 Cr.P.C.^{There are nogroundsmuch less valid} glou.ras to interfere with^{the well consideredjudgmentspassed} by both the^Courts.

¶42

Having^{regardto the submissions made by both the learned} counsel and relying^{upon the decisions passed by the Hon'ble}

¶43

¶44

Supreme Court in Damodar^{S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed BabalaF' R'} Vijayan Vs. Bebyz,^{S.R. Sunil & Conpany Vs'D'} SrinivasavaradaD3, Mainuddin^{AbdulSattar Shaikh Vs' Vijay '} D. Salvi+ and Somnath^{SarkaY Vs. Utpal Basu Mallicas,this} Court is lnclined to direct the^{petitioner to deposit an amount of} Rs. 1,2O,OOO/- to the^{credit of the trial Court within one year from} today.

¶45

Upon such deposit,^{the respondent No.l} /complainant^is directed to withdraw the^{said amount with immediateeffect'}

¶46

If the petitioner fails^{to comply the aforqsaid direction, the} judgment dated 14. 12.2Ol5 in Criminal^{AppealNo' 14 of 2Ol4 on} the file of the learned^{V AdditionalSessions Judge, at Karimnagar} stands good in all resPects.

¶47

L6. With the above direction,^{the Criminal RevisionCase is} disposed of. Needless to^{mention,the petitioneris at liberty to} work out the remedies^{available under law.}

¶48

¶49

¶50