SHORT NOTE
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Sri Ram Rama Rao – Appellant
versus
Vagunta Yadubhushanarao and Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.567 of 2005
Decided on 16.3.2023

IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 255(2) – Dishonour of cheque – Conviction and sentence – It is case of complainant that he had lent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to accused under cover of a specific promissory note – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal – Cheque was dishonoured as payment was stopped – Judgment of Principal Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety – Impugned Judgment upheld.

Held: It is to be noticed that it is the case of the complainant that he lent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused under the cover of a specific promissory note. Though the complainant did not produce the promissory note, it will be discussed hereinafter as to whether it is fatal to the case of the complainant. Therefore, it is not a case where the amount was lent by Sai Hanuman Transport business to the accused. Hence, non-filing of any proof regarding the business carried by the complainant under the name and style of Sai Hanuman Transport business deserves no consideration here.

It is to be noticed that the mere non-filing of any suit by the complainant to recover the amount due under the promissory note does not entitle the accused to claim order of acquittal. The complainant sought to prove the guilt against the accused by relying on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. There is no dispute about the issuance of Ex.P.4, legal notice, to the accused by the complainant and further receipt of the same under Ex.P.5, acknowledgment. In the cross examination though the complainant did not mark the original promissory note, but the accused cross examined him by showing Photostat copy of the promissory note, dated 13.01.1999 and asked him to state the names of the attestors. However, nothing was suggested to P.W.1 during cross examination that the so called promissory note set up by the complainant is fabricated document. During the cross examination the signature of the accused on Ex.P.1 is not denied in any way. Therefore, it is a case where P.W.1 denied the defence of the accused that he obtained a blank cheque from G. Sudhakar and got filed a false case against the accused with his convenience. The complainant examined P.W.2, the bank official, who spoken about the fact that when P.W.1 presented Ex.P.1, cheque, in their bank on 23.01.2001 for collection, it was sent to Canara Bank and later they received information from the drawer’s bank that it is dishonoured as insufficient funds.

Admittedly, the cheque was dishonoured as payment was stopped according to the case of the complainant and as evident from Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, the cheque returned memos. It appears that P.W.2 mistakenly deposed that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. P.W.2 did not deny Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. Hence, it is clear that according to Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, the cheque was dishonoured as payment was stopped. It is quietly evident from Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. It is clear that the complainant proved the factum of dishonour of Ex.P.1. No probabilites were elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during cross examination as to how the cheque under Ex.P.1 went into the hands of G. Sudhakar and how G. Sudakhar handed over the same to P.W.1. During Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination, the accused revealed that he does not know P.W.1 and he never delivered the promissory note or cheque to P.W.1. In the year 1997 he handed over three empty cheques to G. Sudhakar in connection with chits and later he cleared the chit amount. Though he paid the chit amount, but the blank promissory notes and cheques were not returned to him. On account of his acquaintance with G. Sudhakar, he did not ask for return of those cheques and promissory notes. It is to be noticed that these things that were put forth in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination were not put forth before P.W.1. The simple defence before P.W.1 was that he obtained empty cheques from G. Sudhakar and filed a false case. It was not suggested to P.W.1 that the complainant delivered three empty cheques and promissory notes to G. Sudhakar and G. Sudhakar did not return, etc. There is no dispute that the accused never issued any reply to counter the allegations in Ex.P.4, legal notice. There is also no dispute that he did not issue any legal notice to G. Sudhakar. The accused did not let in any defence evidence by examining G. Sudhakar to probabalise his contention. Even he did not examine any bank officials to prove his contentions now, as canvassed during the course of hearing of this revision petitioner.

A perusal of the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2003 goes to show that the learned Principal Sessions Judge looked into the facts and circumstances in proper perspective and answered the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant properly and ultimately after analyzing the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. In my considered view, the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2003 does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. The evidence on record before the Court below established his case as projected with cogent evidence, as such, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru rightly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, dated 16.03.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2003. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Result: Criminal Revision Case dismissed.