THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.299 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner- accused challenging judgment dated 05.12.2002 passed by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2000, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.132 of 1999 dated 28.02.2000 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, was confirmed. The facts of the case, in brief, is as follows: A private report was presented by A.Gyaneshwar Reddy, who is a businessman running electrical shop, before the concerned Court stating that the accused who was working as a Lecturer in Polytechnic College, Hayathnagar, and being closely related to him approached him and borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- during the months of May and June, 1997 and promised to repay the same within three months. However, after the expiry of three months, he requested the accused to repay the due amount, but the accused dodged the payment on one pretext or the other and finally issued a cheque dated 04.09.1997 for Rs.70,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Hayathnagar Branch, and when the cheque was presented before Vijaya Bank, Shahabnagar Branch, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds are insufficient”. Thereupon, he got issued a legal notice to the accused on 13.09.1997 demanding him to pay the amount under the cheque, but the accused, having acknowledged the receipt of notice on 16.09.1997, instead of paying the cheque amount got issued a reply notice denying the very issuance of cheque and making all false allegations against him. Hence, he presented the present private complaint against the accused, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the N.I.Act’), before the concerned Court. Initially, the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, East & North, Ranga Reddy District, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, and registered the complaint on his file as C.C.No.980 of 1997 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, subsequently, the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Ranga Reddy District, as per the proceedings dated 19.05.1999 of the District Judge, and the same was re-numbered as C.C.No.132 of 1999. The petitioner/accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and was found guilty of committing the offence and was accordingly convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of paying the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Further, the accused was directed to pay Rs.70,000/- to the complainant, being the cheque amount in this case, by way of compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. within three months from the date of judgment with a direction that failing that the complainant was at liberty to enforce the judgment for the realization of the compensation amount that was awarded, whereas aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2000 which the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, on consideration of the material available on record, dismissed by judgment dated 05.12.2002 confirming the judgment of the trial Court and aggrieved by that, the petitioner-accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the trial Court. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that in the notice marked as Ex.P3, the cheque number was wrongly mentioned as 268694 instead of 268692 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant issued statutory notice to the accused as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence the conviction and sentences recorded by the Courts below against the accused are not tenable. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the judgments of the Courts below. The point for consideration is whether the conviction and the sentence recorded by the Courts below are invalid on the ground that Ex.P3 notice is not a valid notice? POINT:- I have gone through the record. It is pertinent to note here that according to the complainant, the accused borrowed the amount in question and, subsequently, in order to discharge the due amount, issued the cheque marked as Ex.P1, but when the cheque was presented before the concerned Forum, the same was dishonoured. It is not the case of the accused that there was some other debt in between himself and the complainant. Therefore, it can be inferred that the accused got every knowledge that Ex.P3-notice was issued to him with reference to the only debt in question and the corresponding cheque in question and it cannot be said that the notice is an invalid one as contended by the learned counsel for the accused. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the observations made by the Courts below and the findings given by them do not call for the interference of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. and the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J 15.07.2011 v v