APHC010174592008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA I.A.No.1 of 2025 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 318/2008 Between: 1. S. GOPIKRISHNA,, S/O SRINIVASAN, R/O 48, STERLING AVENUE, MUNGAMBAKAM, CHENNAI-34 ...PETITIONER AND 1. M MAHESH, S/O M.V.KRISHNAIAH, BUSINESS, R/O VENKATAGIRI, NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A.PADMA VANDITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. - 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. M RAVINDRA 2 I.A.No.1 of 2025 in CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 318/2008 ORDER: The order of dismissal of the instant criminal revision case after hearing, on merits, is recalled by virtue of I.A. No.1 of 2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner started the arguments. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the concurrent findings of the order of conviction by the learned Court below against the present petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act. She submits that the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is illegal and improper. There are no justifiable reasons in the judgment, and it is not in accordance with Section 138 of the NI Act. This order of conviction is bad in law. She further submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has not properly gone into the evidence on record and has caused a miscarriage of justice. It is the further contention of the petitioner that there is no incident of business between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant. The business relationship between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant has not been proved by producing necessary documentary evidence, instead of which the learned trial Court has passed an order of conviction. She further submits that there are contradictory statements of the complainant which were recorded by the learned trial Court concerned, but such contradictions were not noted at the time of passing the judgment. She further submits that 3 perhaps the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was alleged to have been issued by the present petitioner in favour of the defacto-complainant for the purpose of remitting the loan regarding the business between the parties, but no bills or promissory notes are placed on record to show that such loan was accepted at all. She further submits that the complainant himself, during his cross- examination, has admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that there is a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for which the cheque was issued. She further submits that the cheque book was lost and, accordingly, the petitioner closed the bank account. Hence, when the cheque was presented, the endorsement appears that the “account was closed”. She further submits that the learned trial Court and appellate Court have not considered the relevant facts and passed the impugned order of conviction, which is illegal and required to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no contradictory statement of the complainant. She submits that the complainant has stated initially that he knew the petitioner for ten years while he was eleven years old. She stated that the complainant himself had a saree business which hails from Venkatagiri. She further submits that the argument regarding the date of issuance of the cheque has been properly mentioned by the complainant. The cheque was issued when the petitioner was 21 years old in the month of November 1999. The petitioner was in an NCC camp in the month of January 2000. She further submits that the document of the NCC certificate was not properly proved before the learned trial Court, that is the 4 reason the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has opined that no reliance can be placed on the said certificate. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court. 7. It appears that the peculiar facts and circumstances go to show that one cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- has been issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant. The defacto-complainant, placed the cheque for encashment with the bank, found that the cheque was returned with an endorsement that “account was closed”. Thereafter, a demand notice was issued according to the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. In spite of service of the demand notice (refused), the petitioner did not pay the amount. Hence, a case was initiated against the petitioner. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no legally enforceable debt. Presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is statutory in nature, and the issuance of a cheque carries a presumption that it was issued in discharge of a debt. Whether the debt actually existed or not is the onus of the accused/petitioner to disprove the statutory presumption. In this case, the petitioner has tried to discharge the onus by placing a NCC certificate to say that he was not in a position to issue the cheque, as at that time he was in an NCC camp. The learned trial Court has taken note of that statement and has also taken into note that the petitioner has stated that the cheque was issued in the month of November 1999. In every view of the entire case of the 5 petitioner, it appears that, in relenting of statutory presumption, the petitioner has first of all stated that he was a minor, secondly, at the time of issuance of the cheque he was in an NCC camp, thirdly, there was no legally enforceable debt between the parties, and fourthly, no bills or promissory notes were there to show that there was a debt between the parties. 8. It appears that all the points mentioned by the petitioner before the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has been properly dealt with by the Court below, and each and every allegation has been considered in paragraph No.14 of the judgment of the learned Court below. The learned Court below has noted the arguments of the petitioner regarding the contradictory statements of the complainant made before the Court. The learned trial Court is of the view that there are no inconsistent statements. The argument of the petitioner regarding the fact that the cheque was issued when he was a minor was also not proved. Moreover, the NCC certificate was not proved properly by the present petitioner before the learned Court below. 9. Considering the entire aspect, in my view, the learned trial Court has taken note of all the arguments and all the objections raised by the petitioner, and thereafter has passed the impugned order of conviction. The learned appellate Court, while dealing with the appeal, has scanned the evidence on record, and has confirmed the order of conviction, and instead of an order of rigorous imprisonment, passed an order of compensation upon the accused to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. In my view, the provision under Section 138 of the NI Act has enumerated the power of the Court to issue an order of 6 compensation which is up to twice the cheque amount. In this case, the cheque amount is Rs.1,00,000/-, and the appellate Court has ordered the compensation amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. 10. In that view, the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffers from no illegality or impropriety, and I find no reason to entertain the application. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is considered and rejected as devoid of merits. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J 17.12.2025 MH 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA I.A.No.1 of 2025 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 318/2008 17.12.2025 MH