Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 86 (AP)

Shaik Nabi Saheb v. State of A. P.

2020-02-03

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court in C.C. No. 08 of 2002, dated 29.11.2012, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2002 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, on 09.06.2005, wherein, the Revision Petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one [01] year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three [03] months. 2. In-Spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 2/ Complainant. 3. The facts, in issue, show that, the Petitioner herein executed the promissory note [Ex.P6] in favor of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant on 30.10.2002 by borrowing a sum of Rs. 45,000/-. He issued a cheque for Rs. 52,000/- towards full satisfaction of Ex.P6 liability. The said cheque was submitted by the Respondent No. 2/Complainant in the bank, but, it was returned dishonoured with endorsement "insufficient funds" vide Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Ex.P4 notice was received by the Petitioner, but, no reply was given. Hence a complaint came to be filed. 4. On appearance of the Petitioner, copies of all the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished. He was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of her case, the Respondent No. 2/Complainant examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, while the Petitioner got examined himself as DW-1 and third party as DW-2. After completion of prosecution evidence, the Petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of PW-1, to which he denied. 6. The main ground urged by the Counsel for the Petitioner is that, there is no material on record to show that the cheque was issued in discharge of the debt, more particularly, the issuance of the cheque and the execution of promissory note to that affect are denied. It is stated that, the Court below erred in presuming that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability. It is stated that, the Court below erred in presuming that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability. The Counsel further pleads that, the Trial Court erred in not considering the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2. 7. As seen from the record, the signature on Ex.P1 cheque is not denied. The evidence of DW-1 is that, he gave blank promissory note and cheque to one Mohana Rao, who is the husband of PW-1 to stand as a surety for the finance taken by him for purchasing jeep. Strangely, in the cross-examination, DW-1 admits that, Ex.P6- promissory note is in his hand writing, since, he is the scribe thereof. 8. The evidence of DW-2 is that, the husband of PW-1, Mohana Rao used to collect blank cheques and promissory notes from DW-1. He met PW-1 and asked for return of the promissory notes, but, she refused to return them. Therefore, the version of DW-1 that Mohana Rao agreed to pay the amount to the finance company is false in view of the evidence of DW-2. 9. Coming to the other ground urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner with regard to the promissory note, a report was given to the police that the said promissory note was obtained under threat. But, the same is totally inconsistent with the defense taken by the Petitioner. Therefore, the plea which the Petitioner tried to setup through the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 cannot be accepted. 10. As seen from record, the promissory note was executed by the Petitioner and the signature on the cheque is denied by the Petitioner, but, in the absence of any other evidence or suggestions proving the purpose for which the cheque signed by the Petitioner came into the possession of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant, it is to be presumed that, the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that the Petitioner has issued the cheque in discharge of liability cannot be found fault with. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and judgment passed by the Trial Court. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of sentence is reduced from one [01] year to eight [08] months, confirming the fine amount. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.