The court considered the compensatory nature of the offence under Sec. 138 of the Act, the realization of the cheque amount, and the legal principles from relevant judgments to set aside the conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT

1. Assailing the judgment dtd. 14/3/2011 in Crl.A.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dtd. 25/3/2009 in C.C.No.671 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam, for the offence under Sec. 138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.Act"), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Sec. 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 19/4/2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1390 of 2011.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

i). On 15/7/2004, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts from the complainant by executing a promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. But, he did not repay the same.

ii). On receipt of notice, dtd. 25/11/2004 from the complainant, accused issued a cheque bearing No.006397 for Rs.1, 00, 000.00 on 6/12/2004 and the same was presented in Syndicate Bank, Dabagardens Branch, Visakhapatnam, but it was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement that 'payment stopped by drawer'.

iii). On that, complainant got issued a legal notice dtd. 27/12/2004, the same was received by the accused on 28/12/2004 and kept quiet. Hence, the complaint.

4. The complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.671 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam and after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay compensation under Sec. 357(3) Cr.P.C to the complainant to a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 (Rupees One Lakh only), which is equivalent to the impugned Ex.P.1 cheque amount, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months.

5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.64 of 2009, before the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dtd. 14/3/2011, by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

7. Now, pending the revision case, Sri P.Gnanateja, learned counsel representing Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri M.Lalith Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri V.O.Raja Veer, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner brought a demand draft, vide D.D.No.374203 dtd. 26/2/2024, for Rs.1, 00, 000.00, drawn in the name of 1st respondent/Smt.Sabbavarapu Mahalakshmi, W/o.Gnaneswara Rao, which is the cheque amount and ordered as compensation to the complainant by the trial Court in C.C.No.671 of 2006.

8. The said demand draft was received by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and he reported no objection to consider the present revision.

9. Now, it is relevant to refer the judgment of this Court reported in Laxminivas Agarwal v. Andhra Semi-Conductors Pvt.Ltd., (2006) 1 ALD Crl.300 (A.P.). as well judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197. wherein at paragraph Nos.19 and 28 held as follows:

19. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyze and re-interpret the evidence on record.

28. In R.Vijayan vs. Baby and Another, (2012) 1 SCC