Dismissed

Sabbavarapu Srinivsa Rao v. Teguru Venkata Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Nov 2022CRLP/8518/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition challenged the dismissal of an application to recall evidence and adduce a medical certificate proving the petitioner's hospitalization on the date of alleged cheque issuance. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of evidence supporting the claim that cheques were received at the suggested time, finding no benefit to the petitioner.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sabbavarapu Srinivsa Rao Vs Teguru Venkata Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8518 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner is accused in C.C.No.370 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tenali, for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶4

The petitioner has filed an application wherein Crl.M.P.No.1424 of 2022 for recalling and re-opening the evidence of the petitioner and to mark a medical certificate given to the accused stating that he had been hospitalized from 19.02.2016 to 21.02.2016. He is also seeking summons to be issued to the doctor who said to have issued the said certificate.

¶5

This application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that one Sri. Jawahar Reddy who had obtained a pronote and blank cheques from the petitioner had setup the defacto-complainant. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Sri. Jawahar Reddy had shown the pro-note to have been executed on 19.02.2016 and had filed a suit bearing O.S.No.33 of 2020 for recovery of money and the

¶6

¶7

same had been allowed ex-parte. The petitioner contends that the pro-note could not have been signed by him on 19.02.2016 as he was hospitalized and consequently the cheque cannot be treated to have been issued by him for a pre-existing debt.

¶8

This application was dismissed by the Trial Court after which the present Petition has been filed.

¶9

The petitioner, is attempting to prove, through the application filed before the Trial Court, that the cheques and pro-note were given at the same time when he was in hospital.

¶10

Nothing has been placed on record to

¶11

demonstrate before this Court that the said cheques and pronote had been received by Sri. Jawahar Reddy at the time suggested by the petitioner. In the circumstances, there would not be any benefit for the petitioner by allowing the present Petition.

¶12

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

¶14

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if

¶15

any, shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶17

23.11.2022 BSM

¶18

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8518 of 2022

¶21

23-11-2022

¶22

BSM

Sabbavarapu Srinivsa Rao v. Teguru Venkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sabbavarapu Srinivsa Rao v. Teguru Venkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yellamaplli Ravindranath Gupta Srinath Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondubhatla Ramachandra Murthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Medapati Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gade Pramada Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddy Surya Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh