B. Chandra Kumar, J.— This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused challenging the judgment dated 28.3.2013 passed in Cri.A.No.238 of 2009 made by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.33 of 2007 by the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, has been confirmed.

2. The 2nd respondent herein is the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.33 of 2007. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The de facto complainant filed a complaint, ‘under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused is his family friend and that the accused is in the habit of taking hand loans occasionally from him and his family members and that the accused has been involved in the business of production of feature films, T.V. Serials and other allied business. The accused/approached the de facto complainant in the first week of March 2003 for advancement of hand loan for a sum of Rs.6,00,000 to meet his business expenditure. On 6.3.2003, the de facto complainant arranged Rs.5,60,000 and had given the same to the accused as hand loan and that the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.0432090, dated 1.9.2003, drawn on Andhra Bank, Nampally Branch, Hyderabad. When the said cheque was presented in Andhra Bank, SAEDS Extension, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad, on 24.11.2003 for realization, it was returned unpaid by the Drawee Bank through a memo dated 25.11.2003 with an endorsement ‘Account Closed’. Though the accused already closed the account, only with a view to cheat the de facto complainant and to defraud him, he issued a post dated cheque having received a hand loan of Rs. 5,60,000. Alleging that the accused committed offence under Section 420 IPC, the complaint was filed.

4. On 29.12.2003, the complaint has been referred to the police by the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and the Police, Jubilee Hills, received the same and issued FIR.No.430 of 2003 on 29.12.2003. After completion of investigation the police filed charge-sheet against the accused. It appears that the accused has obtained anticipatory bail before filing of the charge-sheet.

5. The complainant himself was examined as PW1 and PWs 2 to 5 were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On behalf of accused none were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.

6. The learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, having appreciated the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Cri.A.No.238 of 2009 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the said appeal was allowed. Challenging the same, the complainant filed the revision in Cri.R.C.No.74 of 2010, and this Court by judgment dated 21.06.2011, allowed the revision and the appeal has been remanded the appeal to the lower appellate Court. The learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by impugned judgment confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Against the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision case.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the de facto complainant filed a civil suit which has been decreed and as the accused is unable to pay the decretal amount, he has been sent to civil prison in the said suit and he has languishing in jail since last six months. The further submissions of the learned counsel for the accused are as follows:

“The de facto complainant did not mention the place where he had paid the amount to the a