IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE THIRTYETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 541 of 2004 Between: Tippireddy Obul Reddy … Petitioner V/s. M/s. Kumar Marketing Nellore, Represented by its Proprietor, DV Suresh Babu & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. Vijayasaradhi Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri G. Jagadishwar Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 541 OF 2004 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, Nellore, in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2001 dated 10-9-2003, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore, in CC.No. 156 of 2000. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : The complainant is the super distributor of Marico Industries Ltd., for Nellore and Prakasam districts. The accused is the stockist for the products of the complainant. For the payment of the amounts due to the complainant, the accused issued the following cheques: 1) C/BK/25/785735 for Rs. 38,300-84 dt. 13-01-1997 2) C/BK/25/785742 for Rs. 49,488-10 dt. 18-02-1997 3) C/BK/25/785744 for Rs. 33,808-02 dt. 21-02-1997 4) C/BK/25/785745 for Rs. 3,986-00 dt. 17-03- 1997 5) C/BK/25/785746 for Rs. 53,215-84 dt. 22-03- 1997 The cheques were drawn on State Bank of India, Vinjamur. When the cheques were presented for collection, the cheques were bounded and they were returned on 10-4-1997 with an endorsement of insufficiency of funds. In the meanwhile, the accused issued another cheque on 22-3-1997 for Rs.53,215-84. The said cheque was also returned with the same endorsement. On the return of the said cheque, the complainant issued a notice on 22-4-1997 calling upon the accused to pay the amount. He also issued a telegram. Having receiving the said notice, the accused paid an amount of Rs.38,300/-, the amount due under the cheque dated 13-1-1997 but failed to pay the remaining amount due under the other cheques. Since the accused intentionally knowing fully well that he has no sufficient amount in his account issued cheques, he is liable for punishment for the offence under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-9. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.D1 receipt issued by the complainant to the accused was marked. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the same. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under section 138 read with section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly convicted the accused under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment till raising of the court and further directed the accused to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000-00 to the complainant by way of compensation. 7. On appeal, the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate in CC.No.158 of 2000 was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is suffering with diabetic ailment and he has become insolvent and he is not in a position to pay the fine as imposed by the trial court. Further the learned counsel informed that he is confining his arguments only to the extent of the question of sentence. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is ready to accept a sum of Rs.75,000-00 as compensation. 10. In view of the submissions made by both the parties, the fine amount imposed by the trial court is reduced to Rs.75,000-00 and the said amount is directe4d to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 11. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the complainant- respondent informed this Court that he has already received Rs.75,000/-. 12. In view of the same, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the sentence is hereby set aside. 13. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 30-09-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 541 OF 2004 Circulation Entry No. 3 3 Date: 30-09-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L