THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.RC No.346 of 2005 Date: 15 -04-2011 Between: Shaik Moulali ………..petitioner/accused State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ……….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.RC No.346 of 2005 ORDER: The sole accused in C.C No.310 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months by the said Court by its order dated 15.3.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction of the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The said First Appellate Court after hearing both sides, after perusing, considering, appreciating the evidence and other material on record was pleased to dismiss the appeal by its order dated 18.2.2005 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Assailing the judgment of dismissal, the accused has filed this criminal revision case inte alia on the following grounds: that the both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and thereby came to wrong conclusion in convicting the revision petitioner, which is against the settled law; that both the Courts should have seen that there is difference between the signature of the petitioner and other writings in Ex.P2 and that the same was admitted by the respondent/complainant in his cross-examination; that the Courts below ought to have seen that Ex.P1-promissory note and Ex.P2-cheque were issued in favour of one Bandi Venkateswara Rao and not in favour of the respondent/complainant herein; that both the Courts ought to have seen that in the I.P filed by the revision petitioner/accused, the respondent/complainant was not shown as one of his creditors; and both the Courts below ought to have rejected the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, since P.W.1 is the respondent/complainant himself and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the bank officials. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent on 10.1.2002 and executed Ex.P.1-promissory note. On demand, the revision petitioner issued Ex.P.2-cheque on 5.3.2003 for Rs.4,00,000/- towards part payment of debt due under Ex.P.1-promissory note. The respondent presented Ex.P.2-cheque through his banker and the same was bounced with an endorsement “insufficient funds” and to that effect bank issued Ex.P.3-memo. The respondent got issued Ex.P.5-notice dated 16.4.2003 to the revision petitioner to pay the amount covered by the said cheque and the petitioner gave reply dated 5.5.2003. 3. On behalf of the respondent-complainant, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and exs.P.1 to P.8 wee marked, whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the revision petitioner-accused. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused raised the self same ground as he has raised in the grounds of the revision case and further contended that both the courts below erred in not appreciating the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective and as such committed an error in convicting and sentencing him. Therefore, contended that the impugned judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgments of both the Courts below. 6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 7. It is to be seen that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent-complainant obtained blank cheque from the revision petitioner or the revision petitioner issued Ex.P.2 to Bandi Venkateshwarrao without filling the columns therein. So also, there is no evidence on record to show that there is difference between the signature of the revision petitioner and the other writings in Ex.P.2. Further the revision petitioner is not disputing the presentation of Ex.P.2 by the respondent-complainant and its dishonour. So far as not showing the respondent-complainant as one of the creditors in insolvency petition is concerned, the revision petitioner might have intentionally not made the respondent-complainant as one of the creditors to evade the payment. Further, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 cannot be brushed aside since they are bank officials and they have no personal grudge against the revision petitioner. 8. Therefore, this court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner-accused by the trial court and as confirmed by the first appellate court cannot be said to be perverse nor it can be said that they have committed any error or irregularity. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J Mrb/Stp Date: 15-04.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.RC No.346 of 2005 Date:15-04-2011