THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1316 of 2009

ORDER:

This revision is filed by the petitioner / Accused, challenging the Judgment of the learned V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, dated 04-02-2008 in Crl.A.No.323 of 2007, confirming the Judgment passed by the learned IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 06-09-2007 in C.C.No.872 of 2004, convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the Act’), and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in-default simple imprisonment for one month.

2. As seen from the proceeding sheet, on every occasion there was no representation continuously on behalf of the revision petitioner. Though the case is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ none appears on behalf of the revision petitioner.

3. For the said reason, I have gone through the record. The case of the complainant is that the revision petitioner herein, who is accused, requested him for hand loan of Rs.50,000/- to be paid within three (3) months. Accordingly, on 04-03- 2003 he paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused. However, the said amount was not returned by the accused. Upon continuous demand for repayment of loan amount, cheque in question for Rs.50,000/- was issued by the accused. When the said cheque was presented for clearance, the same was returned un-paid on the ground of ‘INSUFFICIENT FUNDS’. Aggrieved by the said return of cheque, legal notice was issued. Since the accused failed to make payment covered under the cheque having received notice, complainant filed complaint. During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. In defence, accused entered into the witness box and marked Exs.D-1 to D-8, which were cash receipts and Ex.D-9 – Form (A) Registration of Firms of Jai Bhavani Finance Corporation.

4. It is the case of the accused that the cheque in question was issued in a chit transaction, which was being run by the complainant. The trial Court found that there were no signatures of the complainant on any of the receipts that they have issued in a chit transaction. For the said reason, the ground raised by the accused that the cheque in question was issued in blank towards security in a chit transaction but not towards repayment of loan was not accepted by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

5. The specific plea of the accused is that the cheque was in fact issued in blank and in a separate transaction. The said defence taken by the accused was not proved before the Courts below even by preponderance of probability. Merely marking documents, under Exs.D-1 to D-8 – receipts, is not sufficient to discharge the burden that has shifted to the accused.

6. For the said reasons, I do not find any infirmity with the findings of both the Courts below. However, keeping in view of the fact that the transaction is nearly 21 years ago and the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi criminal in nature, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused. The fine component shall remain un-altered.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment of revision petitioner / accused to the period already undergone. Since fine is paid no further orders are required. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________ K. SURENDER, J April 23, 2024 PN