(1) Leave granted.
(2) Being aggrieved by the conviction under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and the sentence of one year imposed
upon Sri Reddy Satyanarayana @ Satish, the appellant-M/s. Ganga
Bhavani Constructions has preferred this appeal.
(3) The appellant-M/s. Ganga Bhavani Construtions has borrowed
a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from the second
respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao on 04.04.2007. The
appellant executed a promissory note in favour of respondent
no.2. Additionally, the appellant also issued a cheque on
17.04.2008. Upon presentation of the same, the said cheque
was returned with endorsement “payment stopped by drawer” on
18.04.2008. In the complaint filed by the second respondentNarapureddy Sanyasi Rao under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the
Trial Court vide Judgment dated 17.04.2012, convicted the
appellant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. The
First Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and also the
sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant. The High
Court vide impugned judgment dated 11.10.2018 dismissed the
revision petition upholding the conviction of the appellant
observing that the appellant had admitted his signature on the
cheque and has failed to rebut the presumption under Section
138 of the N.I. Act. The High Court while affirming the
conviction has reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed
upon the appellant from two years to one year. Being aggrieved
the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(4) Vide Order dated 02.01.2019, this Court has directed the
appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs) before the Trial Court – VIth Additional Judicial
Magistrate of first Class, Rajahmundry. In compliance of the
said order dated 02.01.2019, the appellant has deposited a sum
of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) before the concerned Trial
Court on 15.02.2019.
(5) Now today, the appellant-M/s. Ganga Bhavani Constructions
represented by its proprietor- Sri Reddy Satyanarayana @ Satish
is present in the Court in-person. Mr. Chava Badri Nath Babu,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that
the appellant and second respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao has
compromised the matter. It is stated that Pursuant to the
Compromise Memo, the second respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao
has received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs). The
second respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao is present in the
Court in-person and identified by his AADHAR card produced by
him. They have today filed the Compromise Memo duly attested
by the Notary Public at Delhi which shall form part of the
record. It is stated at the Bar that in pursuance of the said
Compromise Memo, respondent no.2-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao has
received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs).
(6) In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties,
the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 138 of
the N.I.Act and the sentence imposed upon him is set aside and
the appellant-Sri Reddy Satyanarayana @ Satish is acquitted of
the charge under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in terms of Section
320(8) of the Cr.P.C.
(7) Since the second respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao, who
is present in the Court in-person, has stated that he received
the entire cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs)
pursuant to the Compromise, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs) deposited before the Trial Court shall be refunded
to the appellant.
(8) The appeal is accordingly allowed.
AUGUST 28, 2019.
We are excited to have you as a valued member of our Supreme Court Digests Community.
Download latest Supreme Court Monthly/Yearly Digests.