Dismissed

B.Pruthvi Raj v. K.Suresh

Telangana HC16 Dec 2024CRLRC/1892/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC to set aside the confirmation of conviction under Section 138 NI Act by the appellate court. The bench held the lower courts did not err in law or fact and found no reason to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The impugned judgments confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act are upheld.

B.Pruthvi Raj Vs K.Suresh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t³²⁹⁹ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE NO: 1892OF 2012

¶7

criminal Revision fired under Sections 397 & 401 of crpc against the judgment dated 04.09.2012 passed in crl.Appeal No. 35 of 2010 on thifile of the court of the lX Additional District and sessions Judge, (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Naga1, preferred against the judgment oaiea )s-oi-zo.l0-passed in c.c.No. 462 of 2006 on the file of the court of the lX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Miyapur.

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.Pruthvi Raj, S/o. B.Parameshwar, Occ Business, R/o. Flat No. 102, H.No. 7_1_ 276138 and 39, sai Kamar Apartments, suprabhat Nagar, Barkarirpet, Hyderabad.

¶10

AND

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

1 K Suresh, S/o. K.Anjaiah, Occ Advocate, R/o. H.No. 10-3_25, Fateh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rept. by the public prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

CRLRCMP. NO:28 63 0F 2012

¶16

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c- praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired. in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the judgment dated 25-03-2012 in c.c.NJ.462 of 2006 on the file of the lX Metropolrtan Magistrate, Cyberabad. Miyapur, *t i.n i. confirmed in crl.Appeal No. 35 of 2010 dated o4-og-2012 on ftre rile of the court of the lX Additional District and sessions Judge, (Frc), Ranga Reddy Distrrct at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the above crimlnal revision caie.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. NANDITA GUHA, Amicus Curiae

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI MANIK RAO (Not present)

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. E. GANESH,

¶20

ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HOICOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V, VE}IUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1892 Olr 2OL2

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case is filed b1' the petitioner seeking to set aside the judgment dated 04.O9.2O)2 in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 20 10 on the file of the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Redd1, District, at L.B Nagar (for shc,rt, "the appellate Court") confirming the judgment dated 25.03.2O1O in C.C.No.462 of 2006 on the file ,rf the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kr"rkatpalll , at Miyapur (for short, "the trial Court").

¶25

Heard l\tls.Nandita Guha, learned 'Amicus Ouicte' appearing on behalf of t're petitioner and Mr.E.(ianesh, lcarnL.d Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 State. No appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1.

¶26

It is noticed that Mr.Manik Rao, learnbd counsel for respondent No.1, filed a memo vide U.S.R.No.686 1O of 2024 seeking to delete his name from the Cause List stating that his consistent efforts to come in contact with respondent No.l have gglg i" vain. I{ence, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits*i]-the case as per the decision of the Honble

¶27

,')

¶28

Apex Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradeshr, wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution si.mpticiter without examining Ihc mcrits.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that on 06.11.2005, petitioner/accused approached respondent No.1/complainant and requested him to arrange Rs.5,00,OOO/- in cash towards hand loan, to rheet his personal necessities. The complainant had arranged and paid the said amount to the accused as hand loan. It is stated that the accused promised respondent No.1 to repay the hand loan within three months but he failed to do so. Upon repeated requests made by the complainant, the accused issued the cheque bearing No.024686 for Rs.5,O0,0OO/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement "insufficient funds,,. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice dated O1-03.2O06 catling upon the accused to repay the money due. But the accused neither paid the money nor replied the notice. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the offence under

¶30

I 11996.1^{4 Supreme} Court Cascs 720

¶31

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ,,the NI Act")

¶32

The trial Court, vide judgment 25.03.201O in C.C.No.462 of 2006 found tl.re petitioner/ accused guilty for the offence under Section I 38 of NI Act and sentenced l-rim to pay fine of Rs.10,0OO/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months; further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,O0 ,OOO / -, in default, to sulfer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

¶33

The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the Appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hovvever, since, the petitioner had already paid the fine amount, he was directecl to pay the compensation amount within a period of three weeks lrom the date of the judgment. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence of PW I is not tenable and respondent No. 1/complainant had filed the present complaint to extract illegai amounts from the petitioner. But, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appre-,ciate the evidence available on record in proper -t

¶35

¶36

perspective and erroneously passed their respective judgments. Therefore, she seeks to allow this Revision.

¶37

B. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court is not warranted. The refore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision.

¶38

On behalf of the complainant, the trial Court examined the complainant himseif as PW1 and marked Exs.p1 to p6. On behalf of the defence, DWs.1 and 2 r.vere examined and Exs.D 1 to D9 were marked. Upon carefui consideratior-r of the material available on record, the trial Court found that the evidence of complainant is cogent and trustworthy to drive thc Court to come to the conclusion that the accused borrowed amount from the complainant and issued cheque towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt and that the same was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient funds". Therefore, the trial Court rendered its judgment.

¶39

In the appeal, the appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, observed that the accused himself admitted in cross-examination that he has filed reply to the legal notice

¶40

¶41

only after the complainant had filed the complaint before the triat Court. Accor,lir-rg to the evidence of PW 1 , he has got friendship with the ac<:used and out of such friendship he l-ras arralged a loan of Rs.5,t)0,0O0/-; that the accused failed to pay the money within the stipulated time. On repeated demands, the accused issued cheque for the said amount; the cheque was dishonoured due to lack of amount in his account. But, in the reply notice, the accused failerl to state that he has not signed on the said cheque. Therefore, according to the accused, till he received the legal notice, he did not notice the missing of the cheque. If at all his cheque was misplaced and he realized that the said cheque fell into the hands of the complainant, he ought to have issued reply notice disputing all the averments including the genuineness of the said cheque. Therefore, the appellate Court found that the accused had issued the reply notice leisurely by arralging all the documents in support of his defence.

¶42

I 1. The accused claimed that he along with complainant conducted joint finance business but he cor-rld not substantiate the said clain-r b,v producing any document. The accused claimed that both of them have subscribed private chits and at the instance of complainalt he used to give cheques for payment of

¶43

¶44

¶45

installments. If at all the accused was asked to give cheques towards payment of installments, he need not have given blanck cheques and he could not issued cheques by stating all the details of the amount, name of drawee etc. Therefore, the accused failed to give details of the joint finance businbss; pass books etc. to prove the said subscription. Moreover, the signature on Ex P1 was lound to be identical with the admitted signature of the accused and he did not take steps to get the signature of Ex Pl compared with his admitted signatures by any expert. The accused, in his cross-examination, had admitted that he did not dispute the signature on Ex Pl either in his reply notice or in his chief afhdavit. Hence, the appellate Court observed that the evidence of PW 1 coupled with his documents proved the existence of legally enforceable debt between the accused and complainant and that the evidence of DWs. I and 2 was not believable. Stating thus, the appellate Court dismissed the Appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.

¶46

This Court vide order dated O8.1O.2012 suspended the impugned judgment with regard to the payment of compensation amount by the petitioner to respondent No. 1, pending Revision. Later, the matter underwent several adjournments.

¶47

¶48

In the case on hand, both the Courts ht:ld that^the petitioner was; guilty of the ofl'ence under Section I 38 of NI Act, which findinq, in mv considered view, does not call for

¶49

interference, in exercise of revisional^jurisdiction ttnder Section 397 Cr.P.C. I{ence, I lind no reason to interfere rvith the^u'ell considered .jtulgments^passed by both the Courts

¶50