THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.45 OF 2014

ORDER :

The present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 397(2) and 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.12.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2012 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad wherein and where under the conviction and sentenced imposed against the petitioner vide judgment dated 29.02.2012 in CC No.235 of 2011 on the file of the learned XIV Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad was confirmed.

2. Heard S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned assistant public prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Sri Daita Purnachander Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. CC No.235 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court is a case registered by the 2nd respondent herein alleging that the petitioner, taking advantage of acquaintance with the 2nd respondent, in the 2nd week of January, 2006 obtained an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as a loan by executing a promissory note and subsequently, upon persistent demands made by the complainant, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.781856 dated 15.05.2006 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Vysya Bank, Bidar Branch towards discharge of the said loan amount and failed to honour the same due to closure of the said account. Further, vide return memo dated 21.07.2006 the said cheque was returned for the reason of closure of the said account. The legal notice dated 20.07.2006 issued to the petitioner was returned as not claimed. Accordingly, the complainant filed the present calendar case under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that in-spite his compliance of statutory requirements as required under Section 138 of NI Act, the petitioner failed either to repay the amount covered under the subject cheque or gave any reply and hence, he is liable to be punished under the said statute.

4. During trial, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and relied upon Exs.P1 to P8, which are the promissory notes, dishonoured cheque, return memo, legal notice, postal receipt, statutory notice and returned registered post cover. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. The case of the petitioner is total denial.

5. The trial Court, upon considering the arguments submitted on both sides and upon taking into consideration the evidence adduced, has found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The trial Court held that though the accused put-forth several contentions, he failed to establish the same and that he also failed to explain the reason for the 2nd respondent to implicate a stranger in a false criminal case, his executing promissory note in favour of the 2nd respondent and his refusal to receive the statutory notice and also his failure in repaying the hand loan amount even after issuance of statutory notice or issuing any suitable reply.

6. Aggrieved by the said findings, the petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2012 on the file of the appellate Court which was also dismissed confirming the findings of the trial Court.

7. Aggrieved by the said findings of the appellate Court, the present criminal revision case is being preferred by the petitioner/accused mainly contending that both the trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to consider the defence of the petitioner with regard to missing cheque book and that he has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the complainant, the complainant, though contended that he showed the present transaction in his IT returns, he failed to file the same in the Court, the legal notice was not sent to the correct address of the petitioner, the trial Court rej