THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.203 OF 2004 Date: 27-06-2011 Between: M/s. Shafi & Co., Rep. by its Proprietor R/o. 1-4-902/1, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. - - - Petitioners/ Appellants/ Accused. AND 1) M/s. Konark Steels, (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, V. Subba Rao, S/o.Lakshminaswamy, R/o. Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 2) The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.203 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner-Accused against judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2000, dated 09-02-2004, passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, preferred against conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.798 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad, East and North. 2. The Petitioner-Accused was prosecuted in C.C.No.798 of 1996 for offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) for bouncing a cheque. After due trial, learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad, East and North, convicted the petitioner for the said offences under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. and accordingly sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One year and also to pay balance amount of the cheque of Rs.1,35,206/- by way of compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. within two months from the date of judgement and also further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, vide judgment, dated 24-04-2000 respectively 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 petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that notice sent subsequent to the dishonour of the cheque was served upon one Jabbar according to the complainant-PW.1 and therefore there was no proper service of notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act and in fact the Revision Petitioner/Accused cleared the so called debts and the Courts below got no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and also failed to appreciate the matter properly. 5. Now the point for consideration are : 1. Whether sufficient evidence was placed to uphold the prosecution version? and 2. Whether the conviction and sentences imposed by the Courts below against the Revision Petitioners/Accused are sustainable or not? 6. 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. Further, with regards to the question of issuing the notice, I have perused the notice Ex.P10 and also the corresponding acknowledgements Exs.P7 and P8 addressed to the accused. It is significant that according to the de-facto complainant-PW.1 it was served on one person by name Jabbar. Then it is for the accused to explain as to who that person happened to be and in what capacity he received the notices. Generally, an agent can receive notice on behalf of his master but the accused failed to place any evidence in that context for which adverse inference is to be drawn. 7. Examining the relevant circumstances, I find no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court so far as the conviction is concerned. Further, so far as the sentence is concerned because it is a case of 1996 from, which period the accused might have suffered a lot by way of attending various Courts and facing the trial consequently and also facing the ordeal of conviction and sentences imposed as a result of which, he might have lost valuable part of his life and lot of money. I feel it advisable to reduce the sentence from one year to six months while keeping intact the fine clause and compensation clause imposed by the lower Court in tact. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed but however the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months keeping intact the fine clause. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J June 27, 2011. Dsh THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 269 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.203 of 2011 (Dismissed) Date:27.06.2011 DSH.