Telangana High Court
CRLRC/1478/2005 of Annavarapu Ravi Kumar, Vs Hindusthan Lever Ltd., A.F.S.Divkision, rep.by its Operation on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No.1478 of 2005 JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 30.08.2005, passed by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Vijayawada in Crl.A.No.63 of 2002, wherein the conviction and sentence
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Crl.R.C.No.1478 of 2005
This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 30.08.2005, passed by the learned VII Additional District andSessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Vijayawada inCrl.A.No.63 of 2002, wherein the conviction and sentence imposedagainst the petitioner/accused by the learned VIII MetropolitanMagistrate, Vijayawada vide judgment dated 05.04.2002 inC.C.No.180 of 2001, was confirmed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
The complainant is a limited company having its branchesall over India and has got one such branch at Enikepadu,Vijayawada. The accused used to purchase Aqua foods etc., fromthe branch of the complainant on credit basis by running a khata.In discharge of his liability, the accused issued a cheque bearingNo.135916 dated 03.08.1999 for a sum of Rs.3,55,882-67ps infavour of the complainant drawn on State Bank of India,Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam. When the complainant presentedthe said cheque for collection, it was returned unpaid for thereason of insufficient funds. On 13.08.1999, it got issued a noticeto the accused. After following the statutory provisions, thecomplainant filed a complaint against the accused. After takingcognizance, it was numbered as C.C.No.613 of 1999 for theoffence punishable under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) and later, the case was transferred and renumbered as C.C.No.180 of 2001.
3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined andExs.P1 to P12 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. Noevidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf ofthe defence.
4. The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration theevidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of theoffence under Section 138 of the Act and thereby convicted andsentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of oneyear and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simpleimprisonment for two months. Questioning the said conviction andsentence, the accused filed Crl.A.No.63 of 2002 and the lowerappellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence,dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentenceimposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, thepetitioner/accused filed the present revision.
5. By orders dated 19.11.2012 and 07.12.2012, this Courtpermitted the petitioner to serve personal notice to the firstrespondent/complainant by registered post with acknowledgmentdue and also by way of paper publication, but none appeared forthe first respondent nor there is any representation made on itsbehalf.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused thematerial on record.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused contended thatduring the course of business, the petitioner used to issuecheques to the complainant and even it is an admitted case ofP.W.1 that the complainant company was in possession of othertwo cheques issued by the petitioner. He submitted that thepetitioner is now closed his business and as he has undergoneimprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be takeninsofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.
8. From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail fora substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the caseand in view of the nature of the offence committed by thepetitioner-accused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with thejudgments impugned. But however, in view of the submission ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner hasalready undergone imprisonment for a considerable period andalso the matter pertains to the year 1999, the sentence ofimprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court as confirmed bythe lower appellate Court is reduced to the period alreadyundergone, while enhancing the sentence of fine imposed by thetrial Court.The petitioner/accused is directed to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) apart from the fine alreadyimposed by the trial Court, before the trial Court on or before28.02.2013, in default he shall undergo three months simpleimprisonment.
9. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Caseis partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.
28[th] December, 2012
sj
_________________________
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO