IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.R.C. No.812 OF 2004 Date:23.06.2011 Between: Shakeel .... Petitioner. And: Kajja aRamachandraiah and another ....Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.812 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 20.01.2004 delivered by the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District in Crl.A.No.126 of 2002, confirming conviction imposed by the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class in C.C.No.61 of 1999 dated 08.07.2002 but setting aside sentence of imprisonment imposed and directing the revision petitioner/accused to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- within a period of two months apart from Rs.2,400/- already awarded by the trial court and deposited by him and in default to undergo SI for one year. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant has taken Rs.50,000/- as loan from the complainant and issued a cheque in his favour dated 26.8.1998 drawn on S.B.H., Pargi which on presentation in S.B.H., Vikarabad branch for encashment on 10.2.1999 was returned with endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ to honour it on 11.3.1999; that within 15 days thereafter, he issued registered notice dated 13.3.1999, calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days; that the accused avoided to receive the notice nor paid the amount. Hence, he filed the complaint within one month and after expiry of 15 days. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition or to modify the sentence as prayed for? It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the cross-examination of P.W.2 concerned bank officer, it is revealed that the date of presentation of the cheque was interpolated as 17.02.1999 and even though it was submitted on 17.02.1999 till 05.03.1999 it was not sent back and on the very same day i.e., on 17.02.1999, P.W.2 received another cheque bearing No.324352 along with the cheque bearing No.355815 and at one stage he deposed that he did not give any separate number for each cheque whereas he immediately deposed that he gave separate numbers for the said two cheques and further necessary evidence was not placed in the court in that context in order to clear the ambiguity in the circumstances of the case and in addition to that infact the cheque in question was submitted before the bank on a subsequent date and beyond the period of limitation and the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence properly and arrived in an incorrect conclusion and hence the conviction imposed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. I have perused the record. It is pertinent to note that P.W.2 happened to a bank officer and there is no basis to say that he got any interest towards the complainant in the case to give false evidence. Further, the discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only minor in nature which need not be taken into consideration seriously. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts below. When the evidence of P.W.2 is accepted to the effect that on 17.02.1999 the cheque was presented before the bank whereas it was admittedly issued on 26.08.1998, it cannot be said that the cheque was presented by the complainant beyond the period of six months/limitation. It is needless to say that a cheque issued will have life for 6 months unless it is renewed at the end of that period. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merits. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 23rd June, 2011. GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.812 of 2004 Date:23.06.2011 Gk.