Bh. Raja Skehar Prasad v. the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and Anothers

Telangana HC6 Mar 2024CRLRC/1949/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the bench affirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act but reduced the sentence to time served. The petitioner was directed to deposit an enhanced fine of Rs.1,00,000/- within one year, failing which the conviction and sentence remain. Disposition was made with liberty to use remedies.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to time undergone; enhanced fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited within one year, failing which judgment remains good.

Bh. Raja Skehar Prasad Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Its… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32ee ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1949 OF 2011

¶8

Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC against the judgment, dated 16-09-2011 made in Crl.A.No.53/2O11 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Criminal Court, Hyderabad preferred against Order against the CC.No.23112010, dated 271112011 on the file of XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Metropolitan Criminal Court , Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bh. Raja Skehar Prasad, S/o Bhavani Prasad, Age about 42 years, Proprietor, of M/s Sairam Batteries, R/o H.No.5-24, Shop No.1 Vivekandanda, Nagar Colony, Main Gate, Opp R.R.M Hospital Kukutpally, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

T.Sridhar Reddy, S/o T.Srinivasa REddy Proprietor of Power Soulutions office situated at D.No.7-1-6118, Bapu Bhavan Dharamkar:am Road, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶17

Gounsel for the Petitioner: Ms. NANDITA GUHA, Amicus curiae

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M SASIDHAR

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 2: SRI. P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

¶24

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JI'STICE E'V' VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL^{RIVISIONCASENo.19490F 2011}

¶25

OR D^ER:

¶26

ThepresentCriminalRevisionCaseisfiledaggrievedbythe judgment^{dated 16'09'2011in Criminal AppealNo'53 of 2011 on} the lile^{of the learnedMetropolitanSessions Judge'at Hyderabad} (for short,^{"the appellate Court') in confirming the judgment} d.ated'^{27 .Ol} '2Oll^{ir C'C'No'231 of 2O 10 on the file of the learned} XVI Additional^{Judge' City Civil Court-cum-XXAdditionalChief} Metropolitan^{Magistrate' at Nampally (for short' 'the trial Court")'}

¶27

Heard^{Ms'Nandita Guha' learned AmicusCuriae} representing^{petitioner'Mr' Vizarath Ali' learned AssistantPublic} Prosecutor^{appearingforrespondent No'1 State and} Ms.Ratnamala,^{leamed counsel representingMr' P' Vamsheedhar} Reddy,^{learned counsel for unofficialrespondentNo'2'}

¶28

The^{brief facts of thecase are thatrespondent} No.2 / complainant^{was the dealer in Batteries' He was running} the said^{businessunder the name and style of Power Solutions at} Dharmkaran^{Road, Hyderabad'The petitioner/accusedwas the} Proprietor^{If Bri SalramBatteries' It is stated that the accused} used to^{purchasethe batteriesfrom the complainant since long}

¶29

¶30

time. By the end of May, 2009 the accused owe a sum of Rs.6,22,585/- for the batteries supplied by the complainant. To discharge the said amount, the accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.455694 and 455695 dated 22.OS.2OOg for Rs.2,80,000/- and Rs.2,20,OOO/- respectively drawn on Ing Vysya Bark Limited, KpHB Branch.

¶31

On presentation, the said cheques were returned unpaid with an endorsement "funds insufficient,,. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused requesting him to pay the arnount due. The accused issued reply to the said legal notice but, tailed to pay the amount. Hence, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishabre under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act',).

¶32

The trial Court yide judgment cited. supra, found the accused guilty for the alleged offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.10,OO0/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.

ll L. tl I i

/ a

¶37

The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, she seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

¶39

Learned Assistant public prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate Court, upon appreciating the evidence available on record in right perspective, passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, learned counsel seek to dismiss the Revision.

¶40

On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined the complainalt himself as pW1 ald marked Exs.pl to p14. On behalf of the. defence, DWs. 1 and, 2 were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of DW1, he deposed that the signatures on Ex plo did not belong to him. Except a vague denial, he did not take any steps to establish that the signatures did not belong to him. DWl failed to take

¶41

¶42

steps to send his signatures to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison. Therefore, an adverse inference was drawn against the accused under Section 11a(g) of Indian Evidence Act.

¶43

The contention of the complainant was that some of the lnvolces were signed by the accused and some of them were signed by his representatives. A11 the invoices contained the stamp of the shop of accused. The amount of cheques i.e., Exs.P1 and P3 were also being reflected in the income tax returns of the accused. Ex P12 was the renewal of the certificate of registration and Ex P13 was the copy VAT registration, clearly show that the accused was running the business under the name and style of Power Solutions. Therefore, the trial Court observed that the complainant proved his case by exhibiting Pl to P14 and that the accused owed a sum of Rs.6,22,585/- to the complainant. To discharge his liability, the accused issued two cheques i.e., Exs.Pl and P3. Therefore, the trial Court observed that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and rendered the^judgment cited supro.

¶44

1 1. In the appeal, the appellate Court also observed that two cheques have been issued by the accused only after the

ll t-li

complainant had supplied the material under Ex P10. After receiving the material only, the cheques have been issued ancl it can be averred that the cheques were issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. There was no contra evidence appearing on record to show that there was no legally enforceable debt and the invoices-cum-delivery challans were fabricated by the complainant. Therefore, the appellate Court confirmed the frndings of the trial Court and rendered the judgment cited supra

¶50

A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 20.O9 .2Ol1 suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone imposed against the petitioner, pending Revision and ordered him to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.S,OOO/- by him with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.

¶51

In the present case on hand, both the Courts hetd that petitioner/ accused was guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, which hnding, in my considered view, does not call for any interference, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction uncler Section 397 Cr.P.C. There are no grounds much less valid

¶52

¶53

grounds to interfere with the well considered judgments passed by both the Courts.

¶54

Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned counsel and relying upon the decisions passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Damodar S. prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalalr, R. Vijayan Vs. Baby2, S.R. Sunil & Company Vs. D. Srinivasavaradan3, Maiauddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvi+ and Somnath Sarkar Vs. Utpal Basu Mallicks, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

¶55

The petitioner is directed to deposit an enhanced Iine amount of Rs.1,0O,OOO/- to the credit of the trial Court within one year from today. Out of which, Rs.9O,OOO/- was directed to be paid to respondent No.2 and Rs. 1O,OO0/- shall remain with the State.

¶56

Upon such deposit, respondent No.2/complainant is directed to withdraw an amount of Rs.9O,OOO/- with immediate

¶57

effect.

¶58

2010 (5) scc 663 (2012) I SCC 260 (20r4) l6 scc 32 (201s) 9 scc 622 20r3 (r6) scc 465 \ar

¶59

t I I

¶60

¶61

17 . If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid direction, the judgment dated 16.09.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2011 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad stands good in all respects.

¶62

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

¶63

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sha]l stand closed.

¶64

Sd/. T. SRINIVAS DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

secrrowLoir-lcen

To,