B. MANIK RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case is filed challenging the legality and validity of the judgment dtd. 30/12/2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.247 of 2011 by the learned XIV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad upon the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000.00, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.

(2.) The second respondent herein instituted a private complaint against the petitioner under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner took hand loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs from the second respondent to meet his urgent necessities on 2/1/2006. The petitioner executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the loan amount within a period of three months. The petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.781823 dtd. 30/5/2006 for a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs drawn on Vysya Bank, Bidar branch, towards discharge of the hand loan. However, on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement 'account closed'. Thereupon, the second respondent issued a notice dtd. 13/7/2006, to the petitioner, which was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. Hence the complaint.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is total denial. However, there is no dispute with regard to the cheque. But it is the case of the petitioner that he lost his cheque book. The second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioner by using the unused cheques available in the said lost cheque book. It is also his contention that he has no acquaintance with the second respondent and he had never seen him. On the contrary, the case of the second respondent was that he got acquaintance with the petitioner through his relative by name Takaji. As seen from the record, the said Takaji was not examined in the Court.