Syed Ahmed Ali vs Md. Afzal Ali, State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V-

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, passed in Crl.A.No.166 of 2004, dated 07.06.2006, confirming the conviction and

sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of One year and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of five months, for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposed against the revision petitioner/accused by the learned Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, C.C.No.860 of 2003 dated 15.12.2004.

Brief facts of the case of the 1st respondent/complainant are that the revision petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-from him, on

29.10.2002, for his family necessities and executed two promissory notes, each for Rs.1,25,000/-in favour of the complainant and thereafter he issued

a cheque bearing No.704852 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 01.04.2003 drawn on ICICI Bank of Hyderabad, towards payment of the amount due

to the complainant and when the said cheque was presented for realization, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds†in the

account of the drawer (accused). Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act, the complainant

filed a private complaint and the same was taken on file by the trial Court.

During the course of trial, on behalf of the 1st respondent-complainant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked to prove the

guilt of the accused. On behalf of the revision petitioner/accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and no document was marked.

On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned V-Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision

petitioner/accused preferred this criminal revision.

Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant and learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent/State and perused the material available on record.

As seen from the evidence of the 1st respondent/complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, it is crystal clear that on 29.10.2002, he gave

Rs.2,50,000/- to the revision Petitioner/accused (D.W.1) in the presence of one Omar Baba and after receipt of the amount, the revision

petitioner/accused executed two promissory notes (Exs.P1 and P2) each for Rs.1,25,000/- with a promise to repay the same within three months and

thereafter, on demand, the revision petitioner/accused issued Ex.P3-Cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- on 01.04.2003 and when the said cheque was presented

for realization, the same was returned from the bank with an endorsement (Ex.P4) as ‘insufficient funds’ in the account of the revision

petitioner/accused. From the evidence of the Bank Manager (P.W.2), it is clear that the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds. Therefore, it is

evident that though there was no amount in his account, the revision petitioner/accused has issued Ex.P3-Cheque in favour of the 1st

respondent/complainant.

The revision petitioner/accused, who was examined as D.W.1, has admitted in his cross-examination that without any coercion or force, he had signed

on the two promissory notes for Rs.1,25,000/-each. Therefore, it is clear from his evidence that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the

1st respondent/complainant and that he has issued the cheque in favour of the 1st respondent/complainant without having sufficient funds in his

account and as such the cheque was returned from the bank due to insufficient funds.

On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and

cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner/accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard

to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2002 and almost 21 years have passed and it is stated that

there is no previous criminal record against the revision petitioner/accused. Considering these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to reduce the

sentence of imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against him.

In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, the sentence of simple imprisonment of One year imposed by the Courts below is reduced

to three months, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

the N.I. Act.

With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.