Dismissed

N. Ramesh Babu, v. L. Jayarami Reddy

Telangana HC14 Feb 2011CRLA/472/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court held that the appeal by the defacto complainant was not maintainable because the lower court case was instituted by the State through a police charge sheet rather than a private complaint.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the defacto complainant against the order of acquittal was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability.

N. Ramesh Babu, Vs L. Jayarami Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.472 of 2006

¶3

Date: 14.02.2011

¶4

Between :

¶5

N.Rameshbabu, S/o.Kondaiah

¶6

… Appellant/Defacto complainant

¶7

And

¶8

1. L.Jayaramieddy, S/o.Chenna Reddy & another.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶11

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.472 of 2006

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

This appeal is filed by the defacto complainant against judgment dated 28.02.2003 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupathi in CC.No.198 of 1998 by which the lower Court acquitted the 1^st respondent/accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act).

¶14

2. CC.No.198 of 1998 was a case filed by the State,

¶15

represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime

¶16

Station, Tirupathi against the 1^st respondent/accused in the lower Court. In fact, the lower Court should not have taken cognizance of the said offence under Section 138 of the Act, in view of Section 142(a) of the Act, which reads as follows:

¶17

“ (a) No Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;”

¶18

3. Even though, the police filed the charge sheet alleging offences punishable not only under Section 138 of the Act, but also under Section 428 IPC, the lower Court took cognizance of the case for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act alone. The said taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act by the lower Court on a charge sheet filed by the Police, is not in accordance with law. When cognisance of the offence by the lower Court was not proper, in any event, the lower Court could not have convicted the accused for the said offence in such proceedings even after trial.

¶19

4. Further, this appeal is filed before this Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. As per sub-section 4 of Section 378, the complainant is at liberty to file an application for Special Leave to

¶20

appeal from the order of acquittal, in case, the case in the lower Court was instituted upon a complaint. The present case in the lower Court was not instituted by the complainant/appellant upon his complaint; but it was a case instituted by the State represented by the Police by way of filing charge sheet/final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, as against an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in such a case instituted upon by the Police, the State alone is competent to file an appeal against acquittal along with permission to grant leave to file the appeal. In that view of the matter, even this appeal is not maintainable at the instance of the appellant, who is the defacto complainant. Thus, on both the grounds, this appeal has no legs to stand.

¶21

5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶22

__________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶23

Dt: 14^th February, 2011 ysk

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶25

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.472 of 2006

¶26

DATED:14.02.2011

¶27

ysk

N. Ramesh Babu, v. L. Jayarami Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Ramesh Babu, v. L. Jayarami Reddy

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

Mr.Poola Mohiuddin Basha, Vs The State of A.P.

Mirza Irfan Ali Baig, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mukkamala Anjamma Vs Avishetty Narsaiah (Suit Abated)

Vullamparthi Bhushanam(died) Vs Pithani Leela Kumari

R.Sreeramulu Vs K.Narasimhulu and 4 Others

K.B.Janakirama Rao, Vs Y. Venkateswara Rao