THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.RC No.345 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 and another. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.RC No.345 of 2005 ORDER: The sole accused in C.C.No.154 of 2003 on the file of the Court of VII Additional 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 undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. That aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction of the trial Court, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.29 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and the appellate Court after hearing both sides, after perusing, appreciating the evidence and other material on record was pleased to dismiss the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Assailing the judgment of dismissal, the accused has preferred this criminal revision case inter alia on the following grounds: (i) that both the Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective and came to wrong conclusion in convicting the revision petitioner. (ii) that both the Courts erred in not taking into consideration Ex.P1-cheque, Exs.P5 and P6 pronotes, which were executed in favour of PW.1 in chit transaction; (iii) that both the Courts should consider that the evidence of P.W.1 was not sufficient to prove his case; and (iv) that the revision petitioner/accused ought to have been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as P.W.1 has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the self same grounds as he has stated in the grounds of revision. 3. The brief averments of the facts of the case are that the revision petitioner/accused had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant on 18.9.2002 for his business purpose by executing Exs.P5 & P6-pronotes, agreeing to repay the debt with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. That the revision petitioner/ accused had given a cheque bearing No.608122, dated 22.4.2003 for Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was presented, but it was dishonored on 26.4.2003 with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Ex.P.2 is the return memo dated 28.4.2003. After giving a statutory legal notice on 5.5.2003, the respondent/complainant filed a private complaint before the trial Court against the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the accused pleading not guilty, he was tried thereof. 4. The respondent/complainant had got himself examined as P.W.1 and got Exs.P1 to P6 marked on his behalf. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the revision petitioner/accused. 5. The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and other material on record, found the revision petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced as has already been stated in paragraph No.1supra. 6. It is further contended that on behalf of the revision petitioner/accused that since the legal notice was not served on him, it cannot be said that the respondent/complainant had cause of action to proceed against him and it is prayed that the revision case may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments of both the Courts below as they suffered from error and irregularities. 7. Per contra, on the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 8. Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record. 9. It is to be seen that the revision petitioner/accused is not disputing the execution of Exs.P.5 and P.6-pronotes and the issuance of Ex.P.1-cheque in favour of the respondent-complainant. It is the case of the revision petitioner/accused that he has executed Exs.P.5 and P.6-pronotes and issued Ex.P.1-cheque in favour of the respondent-complainant in chit transaction, since he was running the private chits. But there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent-complainant was running private chits and that pronotes were executed and cheque was issued to that effect. It is to be noted that the respondent-complainant filed a suit for recovery of money against the revision petitioner/accused. Further, the respondent- complainant has followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to initiate action against the revision petitioner. 10. 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. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J Date: 15-04-2011 Mrb/Stp THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.RC No.345 of 2005 Date: 15-04-2011