Allowed

K.Siddiramulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Dec 2024CRLRC/1325/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Criminal Revision appealing conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Court modified sentence to imprisonment till rising of day due to set-off of time undergone. Petitioner directed to deposit increased fine amount to withdraw compensation from complainant.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of the day; petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 1,30,000 to enable complainant to recover Rs. 1,25,000 compensation.

K.Siddiramulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

7 /

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was direcied to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated.04-07-2013 in Cd.RC.M.P.No.2009 of 2013ⁱⁿ Crl.R.C No.1325 of 2013.

¶3

[^32ee ]

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1325OF 2013

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.PC against the Judgment dated 03.06.20'13 made in Crl.A.No.1 of 2013 on the file of^the Court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Court^(Fast Track Court) at Medak preferred against the Order dated 11.12.2012 made in C.C.No.263 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile) Medak.

¶10

Between:

¶11

K.Siddiramulu, S/o.Gangaram, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o.Suraram Village, Shankarampet, Mandal, Medak district.

¶12

.Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad.

¶15

A.Govind Reddy, S/o-Narayana Reddy, Occ: Business,^R:/o.Durga Colony, Medak town and Mandal, Medak diskict.

¶16

...Respondents/Complainants

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S Ramesh representing Sri^P Shashi Kiran

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Vivek Jain

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

-------:!

¶22

111

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVIS ION CASE No.1325 0F 2()13

¶24

ORDE R:

¶25

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 39T and 4O1 of Cr.p.C., aggrieved. by the Judgment dated 03.O6.O13 in Crl.A.No.Oi of 2O13 passed by the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak (for short .appellate Court) confirming the Judgment dated 11.12.2OI2 in C.C.No.263 of 2O1O passed by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile), Medak, (for short^,trial Court).

¶26

Heard Sri S.Ramesh, learned counsel representing Sri P.Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.l _ State and Sri Vivek Jain, leamed counsel for respondent No.2

¶27

3 The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainart filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section

¶28

,' 138 r/w L42 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1gg1, stating that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are having close acquaintances with each other, that on 15.06.20O9, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. I,2S,OOO/_ from respondent No.2 towards hand loan and agreed to repay the sarne wittrin three months and to that effect, the petitioner/accused executed a promissory note and receipt in favor of the complainant for the said amount. However, the petitioner failed to repay the amount within the stipulated period, despite several demands made by the complainant, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.091083 dated 2I.I2.2OO7 for Rs. I,2S,OOO/_ drawn on DCCB Limited, Chegunta Branch, in favor of the complainant and requested him to present the cheque in January 2OlO. Accordingly, respondent No.2 presented the said cheque with his banker i.e. A.p. Grameena Vikas Bank, Medak Branch, for encashment. However, the said cheque was dishonored uide Memo dated 2S.O2.2OLO, stating that there were insuffrcient funds in the petitioner's account. Thereafter, respondent No.2 personally me!!{9 petit_i_o:r_91_

¶29

¶30

¶31

and requested him to pay cash or provide suffrcient funds in his account, but the petitioner did not respond. Finally, respondent No.2 issued a legal notice dated i2.O3.20I0. Though the petitioner/accused received the said notice, he neither paid the amount nor replied to the said notice. Hence, the present complaint.

¶32

On behalf of the complainant, pW. 1 was examined and Exs.Pl to P5 were marked. In defense, none were examined and no document was marked. The triat Court after appreciation of the orar and documentarlr evidence available on record found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13g of NI Act and accordingly, uide judgment dated ll.l2.2ol2 in C.C.No.263 of 2O1O convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a hne of Rs. 1O,0OO/- (ten thousand), in default of payment of hne, directed the petitioner/accused to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the judgment dated lL.l2.2OL2 passed by the trial Court the

¶33

petitioner filed Crl.A.No.Ol of 2013 before the appellate Court.

¶34

Upon appreciation ofevidence available on record, the appellate Court uide judgment dated O3.06.2013 in Crl.A.No.0l of 2013, while observing that the evidence adduced by the complainant clearly established arrd proved that the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, dismissed the appeal by conlirming the^judgment passed by the trial Court and further directed the petitioner/accused to surrender before the trial Court on or before 2O.O6.2OL3 to serve the sentence, failing which trial Court is at libert5r tc issue NBW against the petitioner. Assailing the said judgment dated 03.06.2013, the petitioner/accused has hled the present Revision.

¶35

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for t.Ile petitioner stated that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed grave error in frnding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section.138 of N.I.Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the order dated 18.O4.2017 passed by

¶36

¶37

this Court in Crl.R.C.M.p.Nos.1708 & LTOg of 2016 ir./and Crl.R.C.No.2887 of 2O15, which was rendered by taking into consideration the various decisions rendered by the Honbre Supreme Court in Dqmod.ar S. prabhu Vs. Saged Ba.balalr, R. Vijagan Vs. Babgp, S.R. Sunil & Compang Vs. D. Sriniuasannrad.olns, Malnuddin Abdul Sattorr Shqikh Vs. Vijag D. So.luia and. Somnath Sarko. Vs. tl@al Basu Malliclcs, wherein it was held that, the object of incorporating the penal provisions under Sections 13g to L42 of the NI Act is not only to provide a strong criminal remedy to deter the high incidence of dishonour of cheques but a remedy of punitive nature and observed that where there is a conviction, there should be a consequential levy of hne amount sufhcient to cover the cheque amount along witlr simple interest thereon at a fixed rate of 9o/o per annum and held that the interest should be followed by an award of such sum as compensation from the hne amount. He

¶38

therefore, seeks to pass appropriate orders in this revision.

¶39

'^{20to (5)} scc 66J ' (20 t2) I SCC 260 '(2ota)^to scc l: o 12ors; e scc ozz 'zor: 1r^{o; scceos}

¶40

l,earned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the sarne and contended that respondent No.2 underwent severe mental agony by roaming around the trial Court as weII as the appellate Court. Learned counsel submitted that both the Courts upon appreciating the oral and documenta4r evidence rightly passed the impugned^judgments. But, as the matter is pending from the year 2OlO,learned counsel sought to pass appropriate orders.

¶41

¶42

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and upon^perusing ttre order dated 18.04.2OL7 passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.17O8 and L7O9 of 2016 inland Crl.R.C.No.2887 of 2015, this Court deems it appropriate to modifr the sentence from one year simple imprisonment^with fine of Rs. 10,00O/-, to that of imprisonment till rising of the day by giving set off to the period undergone. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount of Rs.1,3O,00O/- to the credit of C.C.No.263 of 201O on the hle .etjhe learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special

¶43

¶44

Mobile Court at Medak, within a period of three (O3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such payment, respondent No.2/complainant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. l,25,OOOl- towards compensation, which includes hne amount of Rs.10,000/-, by furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court; and Rs.S,OOO/would go to the State. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction he shall suffer two (02) months simple imprisonment and the trial Court to levy under Section 42I of Cr.P.C and enforce it.

¶45

With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedies available under law.

¶46

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶47

closed

¶48

Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER