HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.276 OF 2005 Dated 8-4-2011 Between: Sri Giri Chits and Financers Pvt., Ltd., represented by its Director. P.Krishnam Raju. ..Petitioner. And: The State of A.P., represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.276 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner-accused was tried for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”) by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka and the said Court by its judgment dated 2-12-1999 found him guilty therefor and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months with a direction to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant (P.W.1) out of the released amount of fine, towards compensation. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The revision petitioner-accused was a Director of Giri Chits and Finance, Private Limited. He had issued Ex.P-1 cheque for Rs.58,798/- to P.W.1-subscriber out of chit transactions. However, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Though the legal notice dated 24.8.1998 was issued by the respondent-de facto complainant, the petitioner failed to discharge the debt, as such, he preferred a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On his pleading not guilty, the petitioner-accused was put on trial for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Act. The de facto complainant got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining the Bank Manager of Andhra Bank, Gajuwaka Branch as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 on his behalf. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the revision petitioner-accused. The trial Court, taking the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other material on record into consideration, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as has already been stated supra. Aggrieved by the said impugned order of conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.145 of 1999 on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. However, the first appellate Court after hearing both sides and also considering the evidence and other material on record was pleased to dismiss the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner-accused by the trial Court by its judgment dated 8-12-2000. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case inter-alia on the following grounds. a) that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and other material available on record in proper perspective; b) that the trial Court should have seen that the ingredients of Sections 138 and 142 of the Act were not made out; c) that the trial Court should have seen that the complainant presented the cheque thrice i.e., on 19.6.1998, 19.7.1998 and 11.8.1998 and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act; and d) that the trial Court ought to have seen that the legal notice was not issued within the statutory period. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused raised the same self grounds as he has raised in the grounds of revision petition and stressed the ground that the de facto complainant (P.W.1) has violated the provisions of the Act in presenting the cheque thrice for collection. When the cheque was returned for want of sufficient funds after first presentation, he ought to have issued a statutory notice and then he should have initiated legal proceedings. Therefore, it is contended that the trial Court, in the circumstances, ought to have dismissed the complaint. Since the learned counsel for the respondent-de facto complainant not present, the learned Public Prosecutor represented the de facto complainant. He submits that the trial Court after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, whose evidence clinchingly proved the case of the de facto complainant, found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Act and as such, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous and therefore interference of this Court is not warranted. The contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner- accused that the de facto complainant ought not to have presented the cheque thrice for collection cannot be accepted. Presenting the dishonoured cheque more than once for collection does not disentitle the respondent-de facto complainant in proceeding against the revision petitioner-accused and it cannot be said that by presenting the cheque for collection more than once, takes away the cause of action of the respondent-de facto complainant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _________________________ Justice B.N.RAO NALLA Date: 8-4-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.276 OF 2005 Dated 8-4-2011