THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1292 OF 2004 Date: 19-07-2011 Between: Maddela Koteswara Rao. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another. - - - Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1292 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner (for short, ‘the Accused’) against judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2002, dated 28-07-2004, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole, preferred against conviction and sentence imposed in Calender Case No.219 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole. 2. The Accused was prosecuted in C.C. No.219 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’). After due trial, learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, convicted the accused for the said offence under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and accordingly sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of the compensation to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, vide judgment, dated 01-07-2002 by reason of which, the appeal was preferred which was dismissed confirming the findings of the trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : On 27-11- 2000 the accused borrowed Rs.2,95,000/- from him by executing a pronote undertaking to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The accused also borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- on the same day for the purpose of business and executed another pronote. Subsequently, the accused gave a cheque for Rs.2,95,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ongole, on 31-05-2001 towards the discharge of pronote debt. As the accused requested to present the cheque after few days, the complainant presented the same in Bank on 29-06-2001. But, the same was returned due to lack of sufficient funds. The complainant got issued a notice to the accused on 04-07-2001 requesting him to arrange the funds. The accused received notice and gave a reply with false contents. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that no consideration was passed under Ex.P-1 promissory note and as such there is no legally enforceable debt to be paid by him. It is further his contention that admittedly, there were certain financial transactions between the accused and the complainant and the accused discharged all his obligations, but still, some disputes arose between them with regards to payment of interest and elders interfered and settled the issue on 17-10-2000 and in pursuance of the said settlement, he cleared all his debts and there was no question of borrowing any amounts on 27-11-2000, executing promissory note in favour of the complainant and issuing the cheque dated 31-05-2001 and the Courts failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the Revision is to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution case mostly rests upon the evidence of Matampalli Srirama Sarma (P.W.1) who denied to have given the said amounts to the accused and none of the findings of the Courts below are irrational or incorrect and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 7. Now the points for consideration are : 1) Whether the Courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions? 2) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused is tenable? 3) Whether the compensation awarded by the Courts below is to be reconsidered? 8. I have gone through the record. The Courts below on the basis of relevant evidence adduced and after proper appreciation of the material available upheld the prosecution version. With regards to the question of discharge of the entire debt by the accused, he failed to produce satisfactory evidence except saying that after the settlement he paid the entire due amount to the complainant. It is in the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2, who claimed to be present at the time of settlement that the accused did not repay the amount to the accused later. If the accused repaid the due amount to the complainant certainly, he would have obtained some receipt towards the discharge of the debt. Further, what is contended by the accused that Ex.P-1 promissory note was obtained by PW.1 without passing any consideration by way of coercion and duress with the help of police is not substantiated. Therefore, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the accused are not tenable and hence the Criminal Revision Case is not tenable and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed. Examining the relevant circumstances, I find no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below and accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 20, 2011. Dsh THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 205 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1292 OF 2004 (Dismissed) Date:20.07.2011 DSH.