CRLRC/124/2013 of MEDARAMETLA VIJAYA RAJKUMAR Vs CHUNDURU HARAGOPAL & ANR on 1 April 2026

1. MEDARAMETLA VIJAYA RAJKUMAR, S/O.CHENCHURAMAIAH R/O.FLAT NO.306, SAI PRAKASH APARTMENTS, 1ST LINE, VIDAYANAGAR, GUNTUR.

...PETITIONER AND

1. CHUNDURU HARAGOPAL ANR, S/O.RANGA RAO R/O.D.NO.54-19- 20B, JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST.

2. THE STATE REP BY THE P P, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto allow the revision of the revision petitioner by setting aside the Judgment dt.3.10.2012 passed in Criminal appeal No.200 of 2012 on the file of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur, in respect of modification of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, imposed on the accused in CC No.77 of 2011 on the file of V Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Guntur, to that of fine of Rs.20,000/- only, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 121 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 20 days in representation of the criminal revision case filed against the Judgment, dt.3.10.2012 passed in criminal appeal No.200 of

2012 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in modifying the sentence of regorous imprisonment of one year imposed on the appellant/ accused in CC No.77 of 2011 on the file of V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, to that of fine of Rs.20,000/- only and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 195 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect of the judgment dated 03.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.200 of 2012 on the file of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 124/2013 The Court made the following:

The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment of order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur in C.A.No.200 of 2012 wherein the learned Appellate Court has modified the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in C.C.No.77 of 2011.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the present petitioner being the complainant filed a proceeding under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (For brevity “the N.I.Act”). The respondent herein arrayed as accused. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties passed an order of Judgment and sentence, thereby, the learned Trial Court found the respondent to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for two months. The accused challenged the said order of conviction and sentence before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate court after hearing the parties has confirmed the Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court but modified the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year to the fine of Rs.20,000/- in total

3. Being aggrieved by the dissatisfaction of the said observation of the learned Appellate Court, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court has acted erroneously in passing the impugned judgment and converting the order of conviction into fine. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court should have converted the order of conviction to the order of compensation in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court should have considered that a huge cheque amount was in question in the said proceeding under section 138 of the N.I.Act. He further submits that the order of Judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is erroneous and the same is hereby set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that there is no illegality and impropriety in the impugned order. He further submits that actually the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal and only converted the order of sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to fine. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has provided reasons why the order of conviction was converted to pay of fine. Thus, there is no illegality in impugned order this court has no opinion to decide.

6. Heard the learned counsel for th petitioner. Perused the entire facts and circumstances along with the observations of the learned Trial Court along with learned Appellate Court. It appears that the learned Trial Court found the respondent No.1 being accused to be guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The said observation was confirmed in the appeal. However, the learned Appellate Court has converted the order of sentence to fine. It is specifically submits by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Appellate Court should have converted the conviction to compensation. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, for the first time, has placed before the Court. When learned Trial Court passed order of sentence by directing the accused/respondent to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment that was not sought to be challenged by the petitioner regarding payment of compensation. The petitioner had to challenge the order to convert the conviction to an amount of compensation that may be be double to the cheque amount.

7. But in this case, the learned Appellate Court has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2566 (Koushalya Devi Massand V/s Roopkishore) and is of the opinion that the order of conviction in a case under section 138 of N.I.Act is not desirable. It appears that the learned Appellate Court has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court by holding that the proceedings that a complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with the penal provisions of the I.P.C. thus converted the order of conviction into fine. It is further submitted before this Court that the petitioner has already proceeded to recover the cheque amount through Civil Proceedings which he succeeded in lower court, in appeal the respondent was directed to pay some portion of amount which was already been paid. It appears that present petitioner already adopted alternative procedure to recover the amount. Thus the prayer for conversion of fine to compensation cannot be entertained.

8. In the above observations, I fine no justification to entertain the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.

9. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

Dated:02.04.2026 SSA