IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1465 OF 2004 Date:19-07-2011 Between: Chiluveru Satyanarayana ... Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor., High Court of A.P., Hyderbad. ... Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1465 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., against judgment, dated 16-8-2004, in Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2000 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, confirmingthe conviction and modifying the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner – accused in C.C. No.354 of 1999 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’), to a period of three (3) months and compensation of Rs.28,000/- payable to the complainant. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The 2nd respondent - complainant an agriculturist used to sell agricultural produce to Grain Market. The accused is a Trader. On several occasions, the complainant sold the produce to him on credit basis and the accused repaid the amounts. On 20-12-1997, the accused purchased 55 quintals of paddy @ Rs.455/- per quintal from the complainant and issued a cheque bearing No.2591052 for Rs.25,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on Panjab National Bank, Warangal branch. When the cheque was presented for payment on 17-06-1998, the same was returned dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the payment of the amount. But, the accused failed to pay the amount within 15 days. Then, the complainant filed this complaint. 3. After completing necessary formalities, to substantiate its case, the complainant examined himself as P.Ws. 1 and also got examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. After the closure of his side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to explain incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced, which he denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no legally enforceable debt payable to the complainant and when it is the claim of the complainant that he gave paddy for which the accused issued cheque, he should place sufficient evidence to the effect that he raised certain crops and realized its yield, but he failed to do so for which an adverse inference is to be drawn and on a promise to supply the paddy the cheque was given and consequently the corresponding presumption against the accused is rebutted and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter property and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused are liable to be set aside. 5. Hence, it is to be examined as to whether there has been a legally enforceable debt and the complainant – 2nd respondent placed necessary evidence and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court are tenable in law or not. 6. POINT: Admittedly, the accused gave the cheque in question. By virtue of Section 139 of the NI Act, it is to be presumed that the cheque was issued by the accused towards existence of a legally enforceable debt, whereas he can rebut the presumption. But, the explanation given by the accused that he issued the cheque on the promise of supply of paddy is not acceptable. It is something unnatural that on the mere promise of supplying the paddy, the cheque was issued. It is important that the cheque provides that it was issued for certain amount to the complainant. On a mere promise, said to be made by the complainant, he would not have issued the cheque. Therefore, the explanation given by him is not tenable and, it is be held that the presumption which comes into picture is not rebutted by him. 7. The Courts below properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by both the Courts below. 8. With regards to the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the mercy of the Court towards the accused. It is pertinent to note here that the appellate Court reduced the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to three months from six months imposed by the trial Court. It is also to be considered that he has been attending the various Courts in connection with this case since 15 years, facing the ordeal of the trial of the case and also the conviction and sentence imposed consequently, by which he would have also incurred lot of expenditure. At the same time, justice is to be done to the complainant also. It is pitiable that for 15 years, the accused made the complainant to suffer in the matter 9. I have examined all the relevant circumstances. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, but the imprisonment imposed is set aside and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-, whereas the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- is also to be paid to the complainant towards compensation apart from the amount of Rs.25,000/- already directed to be paid to the complainant towards compensation, taking recourse under the amended provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act, failing which he should undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 19, 2011. KTL