Telangana High Court
Pirangi Ramesh, Rr.Dt., vs Manikunta Laxman Reddy, Rr.Dt And Anr., on 21 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 808 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), aggrieved by the judgment dated 14-03-2016 passed in Crl.A No.763 of 2014 on the file of the XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, wherein and whereby, the Sessions Judge though confirming the conviction but reducing the sentence in the judgment dated 08.09.2014 passed in C.C No.455 of 2013 passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Ibrahimpatnam, convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I Act) and also to pay Rs.4,10,000/- as fine.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The accused and the complainant belonged to the same village and known to each other and that there were financial transactions between them and in pursuance of the said acquaintance, the accused borrowed an amount of 2 RRN,J Crl.R.C. 808 of 2016 Rs.4,00,000/- on 24-10-2011 from the complainant and executed a promissory note on 24-10-2011 and being demanded by the complainant, the accused issued the cheque bearing No.20993, dt.01.11.2012 drawn on Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd., Uppariguda branch and on its presentation, it was dishonoured for insufficient funds and the complainant got issued a notice dt.20.04.2013 and the accused gave an evasive reply and when the accused did not comply the demand of the complainant, the complainant filed a complaint before the Trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the N.I Act.
4. In support of the case of the complainant, PWs-1 and 2 were got examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were got marked. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the accused.
5. Upon completion of the trial and final arguments advanced on either side, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred a criminal appeal before the Session Judge and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court, 3 RRN,J Crl.R.C. 808 of 2016 however, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to be undergone by the accused from two years to one year. Challenging the above said judgments, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material available on record.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused had contended that both the Courts below erred in convicting the revision petitioner without giving weight contentions of the accused. His arguments were twofold, the first being, the cheque which was in the possession of the complainant was for the purpose of security and the same was not returned back to the accused despite he repaid the actual amount i.e Rs.2,00,000/- which was borrowed from the complainant. Secondly, the cheque which was deposited is a time-barred instrument in view of the notification dt.04.11.2011 of the Reserve Bank of India, thus the very C.C. ought not to have been numbered. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision and acquit the accused of the said offence.
8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant had contended that the Courts below were justified in convicting the accused in view of the material 4 RRN,J Crl.R.C. 808 of 2016 available on record, more particularly, Ex.P10 promissory note dt.24.10.2011. He also contended that the accused never disputed the issuance and his signature on the cheque, as such, the conviction is maintainable. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision case.
9. Admittedly, the cheque in was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, but, the version of the complainant is that the same was issued towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt of Rs.4,00,000/-, whereas, the version of the accused is that the cheque was given to the complainant for the purpose of security for the hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- availed by him and the same was repaid to the complainant but the cheque was not returned back to him. There is no dispute regarding the return of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant.
10. As regards the ground raised by the learned Counsel for the accused on the maintainability of the very C.C and the validity of the cheque, it is just and necessary to refer to the notification dt.04.11.2011 of the Reserve Bank of India and the same is extracted and reproduced hereunder:
5 RRN,J Crl.R.C. 808 of 2016 RBI/2011-12/251 DBOD.AML BC.No.47/14.01.001/2011-12 November 4, 2011 The Chairmen/Chief Executive Officers All Scheduled Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs)/Local Area Banks Dear Sir, Payment of Cheques/Drafts/Pay Orders/Banker's Cheques In India, it has been the usual practice among bankers to make payment of only suchcheques and drafts as are presented for payment within a period of six months from the date of the instrument.
2. It has been brought to the notice of Reserve Bank by Government of India that some persons are taking undue advantage of the said practice of banks of making payment of cheques/drafts/pay orders/banker's cheques presented within a period of six months from the date of the instrument as these instruments are being circulated in the market like cash for six months. Reserve Bank is satisfied that in public interest and in the interest of banking policy it is necessary to reduce the period within which cheques/drafts/pay orders/banker's cheques are presented for payment from six months to three months from the date of such instrument.
Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Reserve Bank hereby directs that with effect from April 1, 2012, banks should not make payment of cheques/drafts/pay orders/banker's cheques bearing that date or any subsequent date, if they are presented beyond the period of three months from the date of such instrument.
3. Banks should ensure strict compliance of these directions and notify the holders of such instruments of the change in practice by printing or stamping on 6 RRN,J Crl.R.C. 808 of 2016 the cheque leaves, drafts, pay orders and banker's cheques issued on or after April 1, 2012, by issuing suitable instruction for presentment within the period of three months from the date of the instrument.
4. Please acknowledge receipt Yours faithfully, (Deepak Singhal) Chief General Manager in-Charge
11. A perusal of the notification would make it clear that any cheque should not be entertained if it is presented after a lapse of three months from the date of such cheque and the same is applicable in a prospective manner from 01.04.2012. Though the transaction between the accused and the complainant took place in the month of October 2011, the cheque is of the date 01.11.2012. The complainant claims to have presented the cheque on the same day itself and that it was dishonoured on the same day and that upon confrontation, the accused requested the complainant to deposit the cheque again after (05) months. There is no document filed before the Trial Court that the cheque was first dishonoured on 01.11.2012. Be that as it may, what is on record is that the complainant presented the cheque on 15.04.2013 and it was returned unpaid with the 7 RRN,J Crl.R.C. 808 of 2016 reason 'funds insufficient'. As such, it is clear that the cheque was presented after the lapse of about (05) months (15) days.
12. The point for consideration now is as to whether the cheque was valid at the time of presentation. Both the Courts below did not give proper reasons as to how the cheque was within its date of validity. Both the Courts below did not analyse the notification dt.04.11.2011 of the Reserve Bank of India and apply the same in the correct sense in the present case. It is clear from the notification that any cheque bearing the date after 01.04.2012 shall be presented within (03) months from the date which it bears. Admittedly, the cheque is dated 01.11.2012 and the same was presented for collection on 15.04.2013 i.e after the lapse of more than (05) months. The bank ought not to have returned the cheque with the reason 'funds insufficient' but ought not to have entertained the cheque keeping in view that the same was time barred. The bank was at fault in not following the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and for the same, the accused cannot be made liable, whether or not there exists a legally enforceable debt.
13. It is not out of place to state here that, upon a careful perusal of the docket of the complaint dt.17.05.2013 filed by the complainant before the Trial Court, the section initially 8 RRN,J Crl.R.C. 808 of 2016 returned the complaint with the objection as to how the complaint was maintainable when the cheque was not presented within the limitation. However, upon reasons assigned therein, the complaint was numbered and cognizance was taken by the Trial Court. Thus, it is safe to state here that the complainant did not present the cheque for collection within the prescribed period as per law and in the view of the notification dt.04.11.2011 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. As such, the conviction and sentence against the accused is unsustainable.
14. In light of the above findings, the revision case deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment dated 14-03-2016 passed in Crl.A No.763 of 2014 on the file of the XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, wherein and whereby, the Sessions Judge though confirming the conviction but reducing the sentence in the judgment dated 08.09.2014 passed in C.C No.455 of 2013 passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Ibrahimpatnam, convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I Act) and also to pay Rs.4,10,000/- as fine, are hereby set-aside and 9 RRN,J Crl.R.C. 808 of 2016 the accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Since the revision petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. The fine amount deposited by him, if any, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in I.A No.1 of 2019, shall be returned to him.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 21st day of July, 2023 BDR/PRV