THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Revision Case No.1120 of 2005 Date: 23.09.2011 Between: Potti Venkata Kameswara Rao ..... Petitioner/accused. AND 1. Sanka Rama Mohana Rao, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada. 2.The State of A.P. rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Crl. Revision Case No.1120 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is the accused. He was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). The revision petitioner also preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The conviction of Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence, as recorded by the trial Court, were confirmed by the appellate Court. The learned counsel for the accused who laid this revision petition inter alia contended that when the dishonour of the cheque was on the ground of closer of accounts, it would not be an offence within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act. In support of his proposition, he placed reliance upon G.F. Hunasikathimath v. State of Karnataka & Others[1]. A Single Judge of Karanataka High Court held in that case that penal provision under Section 138 of the Act should be construed strictly and that if the cheque stood dishonour on the ground that the account was closed, it could not be construed as equivalent to dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of the funds or exceeding arrangement and that the accused would not be held liable for punishment under Section 138 of the Act. 2. In Modi Cement Ltd., v. K.K. Nandi[2] it was observed that even where the cheque was dishonoured on account of ‘stop payment’ instructions, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could still be made out and that the presumption u/s.139 of the Act would stand attracted even in such a case, although the drawer could prove that the stop payment instruction was issued on account of other valid reasons and that he was not liable as there was no valid existing liability. It was observed in that case that once a cheque was issued, a rebuttable presumption would arise u/s.139 of the Act. The same holds good where the account was closed. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the dishonour of the cheque was on account of the closure of the account and that the accused consequently was not liable for punishment, therefore, cannot be sustained. In the present case, the cheque under Ex.P-8 was bounced through Ex.P9 endorsement that the account was closed. I am afraid that an individual, who issues a cheque and later closes the account cannot subsequently turn round and claim that he was not covered by Section 138 of the Act. The finding of the trial Court and the finding of the appellate Court consequently are not erroneous in holding that the accused was guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 3. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to S.I. for a period of six months. The same was confirmed by the appellant Court. The learned counsel for the accused brought it to my notice that the complainant obtained a decree and has been executing the same. He further pointed out that the property of the accused has already been attached and was likely to be sold shortly. It would appear that there was likelihood of the complainant realizing the entire amount covered by the cheque. 4. Taking this fact into consideration, I deem it appropriate to reduce the imprisonment of Simple imprisonment for a period of one month. So far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the same shall be maintained. 5. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, disposed of. _________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date: 23.09.2011 Mrb/Isn [1] 1991 (1) Crimes 226 [2] 1998 (3) SCC 349