HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.751 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner- accused against the judgment, dated 29.04.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2003 by the IX Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. For the purpose of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The accused was tried in C.C.No.291 of 2002 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence, convicted the accused under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also directed him to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, by judgment dated 08.12.2003. Questioning the same, the accused filed Crl.A.No.193 of 2003 on the file of the IX Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam, Krishna District, and after re-appreciating both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused, by judgment dated 29.04.2005. eBeing aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that the accused is disputing his signature in Ex.P.1 pronote and that it is a forged document. To substantiate the same, he relied on the cross-examination of the complainant before the trial Court. A perusal of the record reveals that when the accused made such suggestion, it was denied by the complainant. It is well settled that suggestions denied by witnesses do not have any evidentiary value. 6. Further, the learned counsel submitted that Ex.P.2 cheque was not issued to the complainant and this was issued to some other person and the same was utilised by the complainant. But however, the learned counsel is not in a position to substantiate the said contention by way of adducing any evidence. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that when once the complainant has proved that there is a legally enforceable debt and the instrument in question was issued by the accused concerned, then the burden is on the accused to rebut the same. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, except some suggestions made by the accused, there is nothing to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Act. 9. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court gave concurrent findings and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. In any event, taking into consideration the long pendency of the case and also the submission of the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that instead of sentencing the accused, he can be directed to pay some amount as fine. 10. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the accused by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is hereby set aside and the accused is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) as fine within a period of three (3) months and the said fine is directed to be given to the complainant as compensation, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. 11. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 12. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 17th February, 2011 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.751 OF 2005 DATE: 17.02.2011 Between : Bolem Narasimha Rao … Petitioner/ Accused and Adapa Naga Ratnakar and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.751 of 2005 (Disposed of) 17th February, 2011 CBS