The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a criminal revision against a confirmation judgment in a cheques dishonour case. The Court found no valid reason to interfere with the lower courts' conclusion that the cheques were issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1341 OF 2010
Between:
N.M. Venugopal @ P.V. Nag
… PETITIONER
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh and another
… RESPONDENTS
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1341 OF 2010
ORDER:
1. This revision is sought to be filed by the accused against confirming judgment of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in Crl.A.No.68 of 2010, dated 02.07.2010, by which the lower appellate Court confirmed conviction and sentence of the accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act). There is no dispute about the accused giving Exs.P-1 to P-3 – cheques to the complainant for Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively and dishonour of the said
cheques as per Ex.P-4 – cheque return memos for want of sufficient funds. After issuing Ex.P-5 – Statutory Notice, the complainant filed the complaint in the lower Court. For Ex.P-5, there is no reply given by the accused, after having received the notice under Ex.P-6 – acknowledgement. The accused categorically stated in his initial examination that they borrowed Rs.3,00,000/-, out of which half of the amount was repaid and in spite of it the cheques were not returned and that still Rs.1,50,000/- is liable to be paid by them. Thus, there is no dispute about Exs.P-1 to P-3 – cheques being supported by legally enforceable debt. The accused examined himself as DW.1 in the lower Court. It is contended for the accused that cheques were issued in the year 2003 to Manepally brothers and other creditors. Giving of cheques to Manepally brothers and other creditors is not the criteria. As per statement of the accused, there is no dispute about borrowing Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant. But there is no proof for the alleged repayment of Rs.1,50,000/- out of the said amount. In the circumstances, both the Courts below rightly held that Exs.P-1 to P-3 – cheques were issued by the accused in favour of the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and that when they were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, the accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. I do not find any valid reasons to come to a different conclusion in this revision petition.
2. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
July 28, 2010 MD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1341 OF 2010
July 28, 2010
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the confirmed conviction for cheques bounced due to lack of funds, supported by undisputed debt, warrants interference in revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.M. Venugopal @ P.V. Nag
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
