Order:

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment, dated 10.12.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2008 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

2. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution is that petitioner/accused is the Proprietor of P.P.Jirao and Company, Lace business, Narasapur of West Godavari District. The defacto complainant is the resident of Pedana. He is a mandate holder and Proprietor of Sri Venkateswara Kalankari Fabrics, Polavarapupet, Pedana. At the request of accused, the defacto complainant supplied 400 Kalankari bed sheets worth of Rs.76,000/- for sale of the same in the Exhibition Stall said to have been obtained by the accused in Dubai. The accused paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- and delivered a post dated cheque bearing No.335896, dated 11.03.2001 for Rs.46,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Narasapur branch.

Subsequently, on 24.02.2001, the accused approached the defacto complainant and asked for supply of 290 more Kalankari bed sheets worth Rs.39,500/-. He took supply of said 290 bed sheets through Dasari Gopal Rao at Hyderabad. On 11.03.2001 the defacto complainant presented the cheque with the State Bank of India, Pedana branch for collection, but the said cheque was returned by the banker of the accused on the ground that the Proprietor of P.P.Jirao and Company by name one Krishnarao died and that the cheque was signed by one of the guarantors of the unit and that the unit was defaulter and proceedings under the Debt Recovery Tribunal were going on and that the cheque was materially altered and that it required authorization of the drawer himself and that the cheque was already lodged and returned during February/March, 2001.

Hence, the defacto complainant presented a report.

4. After supplying documents as contemplated under Section 207 CrPC, the trial Court examined the petitioner/accused under Section 239 CrPC and framed charge under Section 420 IPC against him. The accused the denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were got marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence.

6. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, vide judgment dated 23.10.2008 in C.C.No.172 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam, found the petitioner/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, and vide the impugned Judgment, dated 10.12.2009, the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment from RI for one year to RI for six months, while maintaining the fine. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

7. Heard. Perused the material on record.

8. A perusal of material on record goes to show that, the cheque which was issued by the petitioner herein to the defacto complainant is pertaining to the father of the petitioner and by the time the cheque was issued, the account was „closed‟. Knowing pretty well that the account was closed, the petitioner herein with a mala fide intention issued the cheque pertaining to his father to the defacto complainant.

9. Going by the evidence on record, the defacto complainant himself is examined as PW1. He state in his evidence to the extent that he did not take any document for supply of stocks by him to the petitioner herein and absolutely ther