Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 638
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.
H.Rishi Raj - Appellant
Vs.
Smt Ellandula Nikhila Devi - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 15586 of 2024
Decided On : 15-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : PRAVEEN KUMAR CHALLA
For the Respondent: G M RAVI KUMAR
A signed cheque creates a statutory presumption of liability under Section 139 of the NI Act, which the accused must rebut to avoid conviction.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 139 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 389(1) - Criminal petition for suspension of sentence - Accused found guilty of dishonoring cheque issued for repayment of loan - Court held that statutory presumption exists that cheque was issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt - Accused failed to rebut presumption and provide evidence for defense - Condition to deposit 20% of compensation upheld. (Paras 3, 5, 14, 18)
Facts of the case:
The accused borrowed Rs.22,00,000/- as a hand loan and issued multiple cheques for repayment. After failing to repay 8 EMIs, a cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- was dishonored due to a dormant account, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act, establishing that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment and a fine. (Paras 14, 36)
Issues: Whether the cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt and the validity of the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. (Paras 5, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that a signed cheque creates a statutory presumption of liability, which the accused failed to rebut, and upheld the trial court's order regarding the deposit condition. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: Criminal petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused to suspend the condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount passed in Crl.M.P.No.1986 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1298 of 2024 dated 05.09.2024 passed by Special Judge For Trial of Offences Under SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.
2. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Challa, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. G.M. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-State. Perused the material on record.
3. STC.NI.No.1047 of 2021 is renumbered as CC.NI.No.122 of 2023 on the file of XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. Complaint is lodged under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) r/w 190 of Cr.P.C. It is alleged that accused/petitioner approached the complainant requesting her to arrange a hand loan of Rs.22,00,000/- on 10.05.2018 for business purpose. That complainant paid an amount vide cheque bearing No.000032 dated 10.05.2018, drawn on Andhra Bank, Hyderbasthi Branch, Secunderabad. Accused promised to return the amount in 50 EMI’s @ Rs.66,000/-. Two installments to be paid every month including flat rate of interest and principal amount. Accused executed a promissory note, issued 50 cheques and a letter dated 25.04.2018. Of the 50 cheques issued, 42 were cleared and 8 cheques for Rs.66,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank were not deposited by complainant on instructions of accused. As the dates on the said cheques expired and on a demand by complainant, several times, accused issued cheque bearing No.194915, dated 27.03.2021 for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Yes Bank. This amount includes a sum of Rs.2,72,000/- towards compensation for delay in repayment of EMI’s. Complainant presented cheque at Andhra Bank, cheque was returned vide cheque return Memo dated 29.03.2021 with an endorsement “Account Dormant”. Complainant issued a notice dated 03.04.2021 to pay the cheque amount within 15 days by way of RPAD, received on 07.04.2021, but failed to repay the cheque amount. A complaint came to be filed, trial Court by an elaborate judgment after discussing the entire factual matrix of the case, considered the evidence adduced and by an order dated 05.08.2024, found the accused guilty for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06) months and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.8,01,000/-.
4. Trial Court examined PWs.1 and 2. None were examined for defence. Exs.P1 to P8 documents were marked for prosecution, no documents were marked for defence. Crl.M.P.No.1986 of 2024 came to be filed in Crl.A.No.1298 of 2024 in CC.NI.No.122 of 2023. In other words, the judgment rendered in CC.NI.No.122 of 2023 was carried in appeal, numbered as Crl.A.No.1298 of 2024, Crl.M.P.No.1986 of 2024 was filed before the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence passed in CC.NI.No.122 of 2023.
5. Learned trial Court in its order dated 05.09.2024, considering Section 148 of NI Act, directed the accused to deposit minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. Trial Court suspended the sentence on the condition that petitioner deposits 20% of the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- which comes to Rs.1,60,000/- to be deposited in two spells i.e., Rs.80,000/- by 21.10.2024 and Rs.80,000/- by 21.11.2024. The said amount was to be deposited in the trial Court and acknowledgments to be filed, failing which the application would stand dismissed. The appellate Court further directed the issuance of NBW against petitioner/accused, if the order was not complied in stipulated time. It is this order which is under chal
