O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 21.05.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, “the appellate Court”) in confirming the judgment dated 30.03.2012 in C.C.No.162 of 2011 (old C.C.No.1262 of 2009) passed by the learned XI Special Magistrate, Secunderabad (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Mr. A Dattanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Laxmi Reddy Byreddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-State. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused and respondent No.1/complainant were acquainted with each other. The accused requested the complainant to provide hand loan. On such request, the complainant lent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) on 13.05.2008 and the accused executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of

2-6 the complainant for the said amount and promised to repay the amount within one year from the date of receipt of the loan amount. It is stated that the accused issued a cheque bearing No.392873 dated 07.07.2009 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) under Ex.P1 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rail Nilayam branch, S.C.Railway Head Quarters, Secunderabad in favour of the complainant towards discharge of legal liability as collateral security. After completion of one year from the date of lending the amount, on presentation, the said cheque was returned with the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused demanding him to repay the amount due. In spite of receipt of notice, the accused failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque. Hence, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the NI Act”).

4. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) towards

3-6 compensation within one month from the date the judgment and on realization of the compensation amount, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- being the principal amount be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.

5. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court with the same findings as directed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed respective judgments in a mechanical manner. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the same.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly passed respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

4-6

8. To prove the guilty of the accused the complainant got examined herself as PW1 and also her husband as PW2 and she got marked Exs.P1 to P7. After closure of the complainant’s evidence the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is put to him but he denied it as false and he did not choose to adduce any evidence either in oral or documentary.

9. The trial Court upon careful consideration of the material available on record found that the evidence of PW1 coupled with documents marked under Ex.P1 Cheque, Ex.P2 cheque return memo dated 10.09.2009, Ex.P3 Legal notice dated 16.09.2009, Ex.P4