Partly allowed

S. Raja Rathnam, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Telangana HC11 Nov 2024CRLRC/2347/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. maintaining conviction for cheque bounce under Section 138 NI Act but reduced the sentence to time already undergone, directing fine deposit.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to time undergone; fine of Rs.70,000 directed to be deposited within one month under pain of simple imprisonment.

S. Raja Rathnam, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I I

¶2

Eail Slip,- The Petitioner and accused was directed to be released on bail by Court Order of the High Court Daled 20.12.2010 in CRL.R.C.M.P. No.3527 OF 2010 in Crl.R.C.No.2347 of 201O.

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2347 OF 2010

¶8

Criminal Revision Case U/s 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.46 ot 2010 dated 13.12.2010 on the file of rhe V Additional Sessions Judge (lll Fast Track Court) Nalgonda at Miryalaguda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

S.Raja Rathnam, S/o Joseph, Junior Assistant Government Hospital, R/o Ramannapet Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶11

...PETITIONER (Accused/Appellant)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of AP Rep. byits Public Prosecutor. High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶14

Mamidi Venkateswara Rao,, S/o Satyanarayana. Business. R/o Opposite To Government Hospita r'

¶15

T.:fi E'sFs^ldHfifs(%tsif8ilI'i,-"fl*?3li3fib=*r"r

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. C RAGHU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.KIRAN REDDY

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

i Ii I I I I I I

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶23

CRIIV[INAL REVISTON CASE No.2347 Ol'2O1O

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 13. 12.2OlO in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2O 10 on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, (lll Fast Track Court) Nalgonda at Miryalaguda, (for short, "the appellate Court") confirming the judgment dated 05.03.2010 in C.C.No.159 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate o[ First Class, Mirvalaguda (for short, "the trial Court").

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E. Ganesh, lezrrned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State iLnd Mr. M. Kiran Reddy, learned counscl lor respondent No.2. Perused the record.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complarnant and petitioner/accused are well acquainted r.r,ith each other. On such acquaintance, the complainant ga\re an amount of Rs, I,OO,0OO/- as loan to the accused to meet his necessities.^'lhc accused and his wife executed a clemand promissorr.n()tc as collateral securit5r for the said loan amount at Huzurnagar. Lllrt the accused failed to repay the saicl loan

¶28

¶29

amount, as such the^{complainant was constrainedto frle a suit} against the accused and his^{wife for recoveryof the said amount} vide O.S.No.7S of 2OO2 on the^{Iile of SeniorCivil Judge's Court,} Miryalguda and the said^{Court decreed the suit ex-parte on} 10.01.2003 by awarding interest @^{12% per annum on the} decretal amount of^Rs. 1,72,000/.^{On repeated demands,the} accused issued two^{post dated cheques for Rs'3O,OOO/- and} Rs.40,OOO/- on 13.08.2003^{bearingNos'663 187,dated} 31.08.2OO3 and 663188,^{dated 31.10.2003respectively drawn} on State Bank of Hyderabad,^{RamalnapetBranch towards} partial discharge of decretal^{amount through alctter dated} 13.08.2003 and assured that^{they would bc honouredon} presentation. But upon presentation,^{the said chequeswere} returned dishonoured for the^{reason"insufficient funds"'} lt is stated that upon intimation,^{of dishonour of cheques,the} accused gave evasive replies.^{Therefore,on issuingthe legal} notice and complying with^{all the statutory requirements,the} complainant liled the^{presentcomplaint under ScctionI 38 of the} Negotiable Instruments^{Act (for short, "NI Act").}

¶30

The trial Court vide^{judgment dated 05'03'20 1O in} C.C,No.159 of 2O04 found^{the petitioner/ accuscd guilt-l'"ofthe}

I II L :l 1 I

offence^{punishableunder Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced} him to undergo^{rigorousimprisonment for a period of six months} and directed to^{pay cheques amount coveredunder Exs'F2 and} P3 towards compensation^{to the complainant within six months'} Aggrieved by^{the same,the petitioner preferred the Appeal'}

¶35

The appellate Court^{vide impugned judgment,dismissed the} appeal confirtning^{the judgment passed by the trial Court'} Assailing the same,^{the petitioner preferred the present Revision'}

¶36

Learnecl counsel^{for the petitionersubmits that the trial} Court failed tc observe^{that the mainallegation of 2'd respondent} is that the subject^{cheque was issued in dischargeof a decretal} amount, when the^{liabilityhas already been enforced by way of} filing a suit in^{O.S.No.75of 2OO2,marked underEx'P2,when} obtained a decree, the^{question of treating the cheque issued to} discharge legally enforceable^{debt ismisconstruedand} respondent N,r.2 misused^{the said chequeswithout efstence of} any legally enforceable^{debt.He further stated that ttre contents} of the legal notice are^{vague innature; there areno} supporting documents to^{the alleged demand of the cheques} amount- He further^{submittedthat the trial Court as well as the} appellate Court, without^{appreciatingthe evidenceavailable on}

¶37

¶38

¶39

record in proper perspective, erroneously found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, he seeks to allow the Revision.

¶40

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that the trial Court, upon appreciating the material available on record, rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the Revision.

¶41

B. On behalf of the complainant, the trial Court examined the complainant himself as PW1 and marked Exs.Pl to P8. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no document was marked. The version of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner/accused paid the entire amount during the pendency of the appeal and the complainant retained the cheques of the accused and filed a false case. If at all, the said version of the accused is to be considered, nothing would have prevented him from giving any notice for return of those cheques But no reason is stated to have been forthcoming from the accused. Moreover, the accused failed to give any reply to the legal notice. On the other hand, the complainant by his oral and documentary evidence, has clearly establislred that the accused

¶42

¶43

¶44

: I ii I I I I I I I I I i II ! i

¶45

has issued chr:ques^{in questionin discharge of legalll' enforceable} debt. Therefore, the^{trialCourt found thatthere are no} circumstances^{to doubtthe version of PW1}

¶46

g. As per Section 139 of^{the NI Act, there is a presumption} that the cheques are^{receivedtowardsthe discharge of legally} enforceable debt^{or liability and the contrar5rhas to be proved by} the accused. But^{the accusedfailed to discharge his initial} burden by examining^{any of the witnesses. Therefore,the trial} Court found the^{accused guilty of the offencepunishable under} Section 138 of the^{NI Act and passedthe judgment dated} 05.03.2010 in C.C.No.l59^{of 2OO4-}

¶47

In the appeal,^{the appellateCourt held that the evidence of} PWl and the^{circumstances of the case drawthe presumptionas} envisaged unrler Section^{139 of the NI Act. The accusedhad not} rebutted the said^{presumption, byplacing any oralor} documentary evidence to^{say that the chequesissued are not in} discharge of the legally^{enforceable debt. Thus, the appellate} Court held tllat the complainant^{had proved the guilt of the} accused beyond all reasonable doubt^{and rendered the impugned} judgment.

¶48

¶49

i I i I .iiliill I

¶50

il li I III ! I ii I :]

¶51

This Court vide order dated 20.t2'2010^suspendedthe sentence of imprisonment^{imposed on the petitioner duringthe} pendency of the Revision and released him^{on bail on his} executing a personal bond for a sum^{of Rs.S,OOO/- withtwo} sureties each for a like sum^to the^{satisfaction of the trial Court.} Later, the matter underwent several^{adjournments.}

¶52

In the case on hand, the trial^{Court as well as the appellate} Court held that the petitioner was^guilty of^theoffence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, which^{finding,in my} considered view, does not call for^{interference,in exercise of} revisional jurisdiction under Section 397^Cr.P.C.

¶53

Having regard to the submissions^{made by both the learned} counsel, upon considering the fact that the^{petitionersuffered} mental agony and hardship during^{the course of litigationbefore} the trial Court as well as the appellate^{Court and as fourteenlong} years have elapsed from the date of filing this^{Revision,this Court} is inclined to take a lenient view and^{reduce the sentence} imposed against the petitioner to the period of^imprisonment a.lready undergone by him if any. The petitioner is^directedto deposit the fine amount of Rs.7O,OOO l- to the^creditof C.C.No.159 of 2OO4 on the file of the learned Judicial^Magistrate

Iil1

i EI ! i I I I t I i! I Ii I tI I I iI

¶58

¶59

of First Class, Miryalguda within one month from t'l e date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of sk months.

¶60

14, Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case, in all other aspects, stands dismissed.

¶61

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶62

closed.

¶63

Sd/. I. NAGA LA HMI DEPI.'TY REG RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The V Additional Sessions Judge (lll Fast Track Court) Nalgonda, Miryalaguda. r,with records, if any)

¶68

The Judicjal Magistrate of First Class at lvliryalaguda, Nalgonda District. (with records, if any )

¶69

The Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda

¶70

One CC to Sri C Raghu, Advocate (OPUC)

¶71

One CC to Sri M.Kiran Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶72

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶73

Two CD Copies

Ks/oh" o.A, \rf

I ; t I i I i

I i I I II It

i I I I I I I

iI I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 111112024

ORDER

I -'1'1\ L 9TAI€
,.(
.t
a)
2 7 rtB 2025
.).)
r-
\Y,+ -'f
t
Dt,; ".". 1

¶83

CRLRC.No.i1347 of 2O1O

¶84

Disqrissing the Crl.R.C CP ----l- tzl)^{</sup> l)\ 1c. al'i( \}

S. Raja Rathnam, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Raja Rathnam, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Yallamma Vs Mrs. a.Shanti Kumari, IAS

O.Yadamma Vs Mrs. a.Shanti Kumari, IAS

Mohammed Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Thaduru Paramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Annam Sharath Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Chinna Narsimhulu and 5 Others Vs State Of Telangana and another