Order:

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment, dated 26.08.2016, passed in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2015 on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction recorded against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in judgment in C.C.No.964 of 2010, dated 20.04.2015, however, altering the sentence of imprisonment of simple imprisonment for one year to payment of fine of Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. double the cheque amount, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of six months.

2. A private complaint was filed against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) and the same was taken on file in CC No.964 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. After full fledged trial, the learned Magistrate, vide judgment dated 20.04.2015 passed in CC No.964 of 2010, found the petitioner herein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

3. Against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2015 on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 26.08.2016, dismissed the said appeal by confirming the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 20.04.2015 in CC No.964 of 2010, however, the nature and extent of the sentence was altered and the petitioner/accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,00,000/- i.e., double the cheque amount, and in case of default he was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months. It was ordered that the entire fine amount shall be given to the complainant under Section 357 (1)(a) and (b) of Cr.P.C. to defray the expenses incurred by the complainant and to mitigate the loss sustained by him, after appeal time is over. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. Brief facts of the case are that, the accused is a builder and constructing flats in the name and style of “Sri Sai Manikanta Constructions”. One Gavara Padmavathi, representing the accused, by virtue of an agreement of sale- cum-GPA dated 07.07.2006, which was registered bearing document No.1606 of 2006 at Sub-Registrar’s Office, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, sold the schedule property to the Complainant on 23.04.2007 for Rs.8,00,000/- and received the said consideration amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on the even date. An agreement was entered for construction of a flat in the said site on 23.04.2007 by the accused in favour of the complainant on payment of Rs.11,40,000/- towards construction of the flat by the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.19,40,000/- in toto for construction of the said flat. Thereafter, the accused made construction of the said building and handed over the same to the complainant. On the date of performance of house warming ceremony on 30.08.2007, the officials of the Municipal Corporation dismantled the flat in the ground floor on the ground that the lay out has not been approved by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. Later, on enquiry, the complainant came to know that the accused added the words “ground floor” in the endorsement of approved plan and he forged the approved plan by adding the words “ground floor”. The act of the accused in committing the said alteration is because originally the plan was not approved for construction of ground floor and, when the complainant questioned the same, the accused consented to return the sale price, since the flat was dismantled.