Mohd. Abdul Majid Jeelani v. The State Of Telangana
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2426 OF 2017 JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner - accused against the confirmation of the conviction recorded under Section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'Code') for the charge under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for sort 'Act, 1881').
2. The facts that led to preferring the present revision are, respondent No.2 - complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 200 of the Code, alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 against the petitioner - accused. It was originally registered as C.C. No.326 of 2013 on completion of relevant formalities. It appears, later it was transferred to XXII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, where on its file, C.C. No.445 of 2013 was registered, and it appears, again it was transferred to XXIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, where again a new C.C. No.254 of 2015 was assigned. i) The learned XXIII Special Magistrate having conducted trial as the petitioner - accused pleaded not guilty when he was examined under Section 251 of the Code for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P-32 were marked on behalf of respondent No.2 - complainant, and DW.1,
who is no other than the petitioner herein, was examined and, of course, no documents were filed by him, disbelieving the stand taken by the petitioner.
ii) Kernel of the case put forth by the petitioner herein in defending the prosecution was that subsequent to receipt of legal notice got issued by respondent No.2 herein, he has paid the entire amount and, thus, discharge was pleaded in other terms. The entire case rests or revolves around this particular aspect. The learned Magistrate, in fact, has extracted the answers given by PW.1 in his cross-examination in paragraph No.38 and there has been a categorical denial by PW.1 when a suggestion was made to him in regard to the defence set up by the petitioner herein that he has paid the amount due subsequent to receipt of the legal notice - Ex.P-9.
3. Now, the question is, whether there is any material to substantiate the stand put forth by the petitioner - accused?
4. There appears to be no material at all. Admittedly, as mentioned by him in the above, the petitioner has not filed any documents at all, more particularly, when the due amount said to have paid by him as contended by him, he would not have kept quiet and would have obtained a receipt there-for. It is not his case that respondent No.2 - complainant refused to pass any receipt at all on receipt of the amount said to have paid by him in discharge of the due
amount, in relation to which the cheque issued stood dishonoured, which gave the cause of action to file the complaint. When that defence falls to the ground, the question of petitioner contending that the Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence does not arise.
5. This particular aspect was also adverted to by the appellate Court having formulated the relevant points for consideration. The appellate Court also taken up certain portions in the chief-examination of PW.1 and the cross-examination portions of DW.1 in paragraph Nos.30 and 31 and on re-appraisal of evidence on record with a fresh outlook, disbelieved the stand put forth by the petitioner. Thus, confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 255 (2) of the Code for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 against the petitioner and inflicted the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months and sentence of fine of Rs.5,75,000/- and the default sentence of three months simple imprisonment, and ordered that out of the aforesaid fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant (PW.1) under Section 357 (3) of the Code.
6. Thus, when the findings recorded by the Courts below are not shown to be perverse and the petitioner becoming unsuccessful in showing that the said findings are tainted with patent illegality, certainly, no interference is warranted in a criminal revision Case. Therefore, there is no merit in the present revision.
7. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the orders of conviction recorded by both the Courts below with regard to sentence of imprisonment as well as fine amount and compensation amount directed to be paid out of fine amount. It is mentioned in Crl.R.C.M.P.3967 of 2017 that the revision petitioner is serving the sentence in Chanchalguda Jail. Therefore, there is no need to give any further directions.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the criminal revision case, stand closed.
__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J October 30, 2017.
Mgr