K VENKATESWARA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused working as Typist-cum-Stenographer in the office of A.P.State Seeds Certificates Agency, (Quality Control), opposite to A.P.Haka Bhavan, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent is the complainant against the petitioner in C.C.No.370 of 2010 on the file of the I Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, later transferred to II Spl.Magistrate and numbered as C.C.No.71 of 2011, which was taken cognizance for the offence u/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(for short, 'the NI Act') against the petitioner/accused for the cheque stated to have been issued by him in favour of the complainant when presented returned dishonoured and he was convicted by the trial Court by judgment dt.05.03.2012 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment(RI) for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of Simple Imprisonment (SI) for three months which is from the evidence of complainant as P.W.1 and with reference to Exs.P.1 to P.16 with no independent evidence of the accused which documents include the two cheques bearing Nos. 452210 and 452209 respectively of February, 2010 presented that were returned dishonoured and from the legal notice dt.17.03.2010 issued covered by postal receipt and certificate of posting that was acknowledged of registered cover though two more notices were returned and it is in respect of the two promissory notes executed by the accused for discharge of which the alleged cheques were issued and there are two Lok Adalath Awards No.70 and 72 of 2011, Miryalaguda in respect of other cases and when the accused impugned the same in Crl.A.No.235 of 2012 before the IV Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the same was ended in dismissal confirming the trial Court's conviction judgment and impugning the same, the present revision is filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent-complainant appeared as party in person and also the learned Public Prosecutor representing for the 1st respondent-the State and perused the material on record.

(3.) The legal notice even served there was no reply by the accused after dishonour of the cheque much less payment of the amount and the non-giving of reply as held in para-15 of the expression of the Apex Court Constitution Bench in Rangappa Vs. Mohan, 2010 11 SCC 441 leads to adverse inference and there is even from the evidence of P.W.1-defacto-complainant with reference to the documents in his cross-examination nothing elicited worth to disprove the case and in the cross-examination as discussed by the trial Court what P.W.1 deposed is he was doing plastic business in rented accommodation of Rs.2000/- per month and he has no savings in his business and his annual turn over is 5 lakhs and he requires maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month and his monthly income is 5,000/- to 6,000/- and the petitioner contended that the defacto-complainant has no capacity to lend such huge amount of Rs.10lakhs and thereby his version cannot be believed.