Partly allowed

B.Shiva Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC15 Oct 2024CRLRC/499/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision against conviction and sentence in a cheque bounce case but suspended the imprisonment, directed payment of compensation, and quashed the appellate judgment.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; imprisonment suspended; compensation of Rs. 25,000 paid within six months; upon payment, impugned appellate judgment stands quashed and respondent No.2 gets liberty to withdraw com

B.Shiva Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam., Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner / Accused was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 20-06-2016 made in Cr|.R.C.M,P.No. 671 of 2016 in Crl.R.C.No. 499 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 499 OF 2016

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against tfte Judgment dated 28-12-2015 made in Crl.A. No. 458 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, Hyderabad preferred against the Judgment pas*d in C.C. No. 2'.5 ol 2013 dated 09-06-2015 on the file of the Court of the ll Special Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

B. Shiva Ramakrishna, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Private Employee, Rio. Flat No. 306, Sridevi Paradise, Sriram Nagar, Kuramanna Palem, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

...Petitioner / Appellant / Accused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶14

G. Bhanu Prakash, S/o. Venkata Krishna Rao, Aged about 35 years, Occ, Business, R/o. Plot No.153, Mytree Nagar Metro Backside, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

¶15

...Respondents / Respondents / Complainant

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner Ms Nausheen Najm Us Sahar Rep Mr Botla Venkateswara Rao

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No. I Sri E Ganesh

¶18

Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following Order :

¶20

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.499 OF 2016

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present Criminal Revision Case is fiied against the judgment dated 28.12.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2OL4 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-V Additiona-l District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, "the appellate Court") confirming the judgment dated 09.06.2014 in C.C.No.2l5 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Special Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District (for short, "the trial Court").

¶25

Heard Ms. Nausheen Najm Us Sahar, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr. Botla Venkateshwar Rao and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. l-State. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the unofficial respondent. Perused the record.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that on OL.I2.2O 1 1 the petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,O0,OOO/- as a hand loan from the reSpondent No.2/complainant with a promise to repay the same by executing a pronote on the same day. The petitioner/accused did not repay the same. However, in spite of

¶27

¶28

repeated demands made by the respondent No.2/complainant, the petitioner/accused gave a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-^vide cheque No. 802170, dated 10.06.2012. When the cheque was presented in the bank for rea)ization, the same was returned as "insufficient funds". Later, the re.spondent No.2/complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner/accused, but the sa-Ine was returned with an endorsement 'door locked". Basing on the said facts, the present case was registered for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.l.Act.")

¶29

The trial Court vide judgment dated 09.06.2OI4 in C.C.No.215 of 2073, found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay Rs. 1,OO,0OO/- towards cheque amount and an amount of Rs.2S,OOO/- towards compensation, in default of payment of the said amount, the petitioner/accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of another one month. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal.

¶30

The appellate Court vide^{judgment 28.12.2015} in Criminal Appeal No.548 of 2015 confirmed the sentence imposed against

¶31

¶32

¶33

the petitioner/ accused by the trial Court.^Assailing the^{same, the} present Revision

¶34

Irarned counsel relied upon the order dated^18.04.2017 passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos. 1708 & 17O9 of 2016 in/and Crl.R.C.No.2887 of 2015, wherein and whereby, this Court upon taking into consideration the decisions^{passedby the} Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.^Sayed Babahlr, R. Vijayan Vs. Baby2, S.R. Sunil & Company Vs.^D. Srinivasavaradan3, Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvi+ and Somnath Sarka Vs. Utpal Basu Mallicks,^wherein it was held that, the object of incorporating the^{penal provisions} under Sections 138 to 142 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 oi punitive nature and observed that where there is a conviction, there should be a consequential levy of hne amount sufficient to cover the cheque arnolrnt along with simple interest thereon at a hxed rate of 9o/o^per annum and held that the interest should be followed by an award^{of such} sum as compensation from the fine amount.

¶35

'^{20lo (5) scc 663} '?(20r2)^{l scc 260} r (2014) r6 scc 32

¶36

n (2015) 9 scc 622

5 2o t3 1te; scc aos

I
..EE

( _i)1l \ .,I

tearned counsel for the petitioner/ accused contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the alleged offence. Therefore, she seeks to set aside the impugned^judgment.

¶42

¶43

l.earned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that both the Courts upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record rightly passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

¶44

A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 20.06.2016 suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/ accused by the appellate Court, pending Revision on executing a bond of Rs.S,OOO/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to payment oi fine if not paid already.

¶45

In the case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable \ugder Sections 134._.of N.l.Act., which finding, in my conside red view, does not call for interference, in exercise of^revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

¶46

¶47

¶48

Having regard to the submissions made by the^learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused as well as learned^Assistant Public Prosecutor, and upon considering the fact that^the petitioner/accused suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as^the appellate Court and as eight long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court is inclined to^{takea lenient} view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. But the sentence imposed against the petitioner, by the appellate Court is set of.

¶49

Further, the revision petitioner is directed to pay the compensation amount i.e., Rs. ,25,OOO/- to the credit of the C.C.No.2l5 of 2O13 before the learned II Special Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District or the^'concerned competent Court, within a period of six (6) months from the date of this order.

¶50

¶51

If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, the impugned^judgment dated 28.12.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2Ol4 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-V Additional Oist{9t q1a

¶52

¶53

Sessions Judge,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict at L.B.Nagar, confirming} the judgment dated 09.06.2014 in C.C.No.215 of 2013 on the^file of the learned II Special Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District stands good in all respects.

¶54

{

¶55