HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No. 679 of 2004 Date: 05-07-2010 Between: Voora Gurumurthy ………….. petitioner And Smt. J. Prameela and another ……. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No. 679 of 2004 ORDER: Though the Revision Case is posted under the caption of ‘for dismissal’, the learned counsel for the first respondent has not appeared for so many hearings, which shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the matter further. 2. The petitioner herein is the Accused in C.C.No.54 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, R.R. District, whereby and whereunder he was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant/first respondent herein. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.86 of 2000 before IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R. District and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the conviction and the compensation amount, however set aside the sentence of fine. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision Case. The parties will be referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent herein is the complainant. She filed the complaint stating that she has acquaintance with the Accused and he approached her for an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- as hand loan on 15-12- 1993 and borrowed the same by executing a promissory note in her favour. On the demands made by the complainant for the amount due, the Accused gave a cheque for Rs.15,000/- drawn on Hyderabad District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, dated 10-02-1994 requesting the complainant to present the cheque on 15-11-1994 and accordingly, the complainant presented the cheque on 28-11-1994 for realization and it was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The Accused requested the complainant to again present the cheque and accordingly the complainant presented the cheque on 06-02-1995 for realization and it was returned unpaid on the same grounds. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 04-03-1995, but the Accused refused to receive the notice. Basing on the said complaint, the crime was registered. 4. The complainant, in order to prove her case, examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the Accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court and the Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the Accused as stated above. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused submitted that cheque amount is only Rs.15,000/- and the petitioner/Accused is not liable to pay the same and there is no enforceable liability on the part of the petitioner/Accused. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding given by the Courts below with regard to the conviction and therefore, the conviction imposed on the petitioner/Accused by the Courts below is confirmed. 6. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Courts below is reduced to Rs.5,000/-, which has to be paid to the complainant/first respondent within a period of six months from today, on her filing an Application before the concerned Court. 7. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J Date: 05-07-2010 YCR