Allowed

Palakolu Rajeswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2022CRLRC/452/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an incidental application by the complainant to withdraw a 20% compensation deposit made under the proviso to Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act during the pendency of the appeal, ensuring the accused could recover funds with interest upon acquittal.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.2 allowed; permission granted to withdraw 20% deposited compensation; criminal revision case disposed of.

Palakolu Rajeswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

I.A.No.2 of 2022 in Criminal Revision Case No.452 of 2021 and Criminal Revision Case No.452 of 2021

¶3

Common Order:

¶4

Criminal Revision Case No.452 of 2021: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2021 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur.

¶5

I.A.No.2 of 2022 : This application is filed by the 2^nd respondent in the above Revision Case, who is the complainant before the trial Court, for withdrawal of 20% of the compensation amount deposited by the accused/revision petitioner as per the orders of this Court, dated 08.12.2021 passed while suspending sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court.

¶6

In brief, the facts are that the second respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sections 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in CC No.103 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Guntur. The learned Magistrate, after full fledged trial, by judgment dated 23.02.2021, found the petitioner herein guilty of the offence punishable under

¶7

¶8

Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year six months and also to pay fine of Rs.48,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Further the learned trial Court directed that an amount of Rs.48,00,000/- out of the fine amount of Rs.48,10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant towards compensation.

¶9

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused/the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2021 before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. He also moved a petition in Crl.MP No.11 of 2021 under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, by impugned order dated 18.3.2021, suspended the execution of only imprisonment ordered by the learned Magistrate, till the disposal of the appeal and it was on the same terms and conditions imposed by

¶10

the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order in not suspending the order of payment of fine, the petitioner filed the present Revision Case .

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 in the main Revision Case. Perused the record.

¶12

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in suspending only the imprisonment but not payment of fine amount is illegal. It is also contended that if the petitioner/accused has to pay the fine amount, it is nothing but onerous and therefore prays this Court to modify the order, dated 18.3.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur and suspend the entire sentence of imprisonment as well as payment of fine imposed by the learned trial Court.

¶14

This Court, while admitting the main revision case, suspended the impugned order, dated 18.12.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2021 on condition that the accused shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court, within two months from 18.12.2021.

¶15

It is admitted by the both sides that the condition imposed by this Court while suspending the impugned order namely the accused shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount was complied with. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and since the cheque amount is Rs.48,00,000/-, the impugned order dated 18.3.2021 passed in Crl.MP No.11 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2021 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, is modified as follows.

¶16

¶17

“The sentence of imprisonment and payment of compensation less 20% already deposited is suspended pending the appeal on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur”.

¶18

Since the complainant who is 2^nd respondent herein filed the above I.A.No.2 of 2022 and sought for permission for withdrawal of 20% of the compensation amount deposited by the accused, the same can be permitted in view of Section 148 (3) of the N.I.Act. Section 148 (3) and it reads that the appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal.

¶19

Therefore, the complainant is permitted to withdraw 20% of the compensation amount deposited by the accused. 9. Learned counsel for the accused contended that in case the petitioner/accused succeeds in the appeal and is acquitted, he would be put to loss if the complainant withdraws the 20% of the compensation amount deposited by him.

¶20

The proviso to Section 148 (3) of the N.I.Act deals with the situation. It reads that if the appellant/accused is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay the amount so released with interest at the bank rate as published by the R.B.I. prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within 60 days from the date of the order…

¶21

¶22

Therefore, it is needless to state that if the accused succeeds

¶23

in his appeal, pending before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Guntur, he can get back the compensation amount of 20% deposited by him and withdrawn by the complainant.

¶24

Accordingly, the I.A.No.2 is allowed and the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶25

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶26

_____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J

¶27

Dated:16.11.2022 GR

¶28

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶30

I.A.No.2 of 2022 in Criminal Revision Case No.452 of 2021 and Criminal Revision Case No.452 of 2021

¶31

Dated:16.11.2022

¶32

Palakolu Rajeswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palakolu Rajeswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Puneetha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vasavi Pharam Market Complex Welfare Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinka Ashok Kumar at Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs Chinka Dhana Lakshmi

Chadarla Narasimha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Palakunta Harendra Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chakka Raja Rao Vs The State of A.P