THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1733 and 1734 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since the petitioners in both these cases are one and the same and both these cases arise out of dishonour of cheques issued by them in favour of the private respondents in both these cases, who are father and son, these Criminal Revision Cases are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in both these cases were tried together as A-1 and A-2 in both C.C.Nos.24 and 25 of 1999 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, and the private respondents herein are the complainants in the said C.Cs. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. The facts of both these cases, in nutshell, are that A-2, being the Managing partner of A-1, borrowed some money from the complainants towards business necessities and executed demand promissory notes in favour of the complainants agreeing to repay the amount with interest @ 18% per annum. Subsequently, A-2, in the capacity of the Managing Partner of A-1, issued cheques to the complainants towards discharge of legally enforceable debt owed to them. However, on presentation of those cheques before the concerned Banks, they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused, and therefore, the complainants, got issued notice through registered post, but there was no reply to the notice and no amounts due under the cheques were paid. Hence, for dishonour of two postdated cheques i.e., for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Bangalore, presented before K.D.C.C.Bank Limited, Nandyal, on 03.11.1998, a private complaint in C.C.No.24 of 1999 was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, whereas for dishonour of one post dated cheque bearing No.0330649 dated 20.07.1998 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Bangalore, presented before K.D.C.C.Bank Limited, Nandyal, on 03.11.1998, a private complaint in C.C.No.25 of 1999 was filed before the same Magistrate, by the complainants against the accused for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988, and the said complaints were taken on file as C.C.Nos.24 and 25 of 1999 respectively. In C.C.No.24 of 1999, to substantiate the case, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW.1 and one witness was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked, whereas in C.C.No.25 of 1999, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and one witness was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court, on an analysis of both oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the N.I. Act’) and, accordingly, by separate judgments dated 13.07.2001, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in both the Calender Cases. As against the judgment in C.C.No.24 of 1999, the accused preferred appeal being Crl.A.No.147 of 2001, and against the judgment in C.C.No.25 of 1999, the appeal being Crl.A.No.148 of 2001 was filed, and both the appeals were partly allowed by separate judgments dated 17.10.2003 setting aside the sentence of imprisonment passed against Accused No.1 alone. Aggrieved by the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.147 of 2001, the Criminal Revision Case No.1733 of 2003 is filed, whereas against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.148 of 2001, the Criminal Revision Case No.1734 of 2003 is filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both these Criminal Revision Cases and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. When these matters are taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that A-2, the Managing Partner of A-1, is no more and, as such, both these cases stand abated against A-2 and they lie against A-1 only. Insofar as the sentence of fine imposed against A-1 is concerned, this Court, having looked into the merits of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, found that apparently the cheques were issued by A-2 on behalf of A-1 and the complainants have followed the procedure provided for under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and only when it came to notice that the said cheques were bounced, again following the procedure under the N.I. Act, filed the private complaints. Apparently, the cheques have been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debts and there is absolutely nothing to discredit the case of the complainants. Hence, I see no merits in both these Criminal Revision Cases. Accordingly, both these Criminal Revision Cases stand abated against A-2 and are dismissed insofar as A-1 is concerned. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 27.08.2010 v v