Dismissed

P.Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC17 Feb 2011CRLP/4941/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the cheque drawn by the accused against Axis Bank for the discharge of a commercial loan account was not a self-cheque, as the payee was the bank. Consequently, the petitioner had to fail in the case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is dismissed, as the basis for filing it does not exist on facts.

P.Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs The State of A.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4941 of 2009

¶3

DATED: 17.02.2011

¶4

BETWEEEN:

¶5

P.Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o.P.V.G.Swamy

¶6

… Petitioner/Accused

¶7

AND

¶8

1. The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

2. Axis Bank

¶11

…Respondent/Complainant

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4941 of 2009

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) in CC.No.411 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief

¶16

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The 2^nd respondent namely Axis Bank filed the complaint in the lower Court against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner availed commercial loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from the bank on 31.03.2005 and that on repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued cheque dated 12.03.2008 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Santhipuram Branch, Visakhapatnam for Rs.20,73,722.10 paise towards discharge of the outstanding loan amount due as on that date. On that, the said cheque was dishonoured, when presented for encashment. The only point urged by the petitioner’s counsel in this case is that the cheque in question is a self-cheque and dishonour of a self-cheque does not attract liability under Section 138 of the Act. Reliance is placed on V.Rama Shetty Vs. N.Sasidaran^[1] of the Karnataka High Court in support of the said contention.

¶17

2. The cheque in question in this case, was drawn by the accused in favour of Axis Bank A/c, Uttam enterprises. The above description of the payee in the cheque does not indicate that it is a self-cheque. The payee is Axis Bank, which is the complainant. The cheque was drawn in favour of Axis Bank for crediting the amount in the account of Uttam enterprises, which is a loan account. Therefore, basis for filing this criminal petition does not exist on facts. Therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily fail.

¶18

3. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶19

_____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶20

Dated: 14.02.2011 ysk

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4941 of 2009

¶23

DATED: 17.02.2011

¶24

ysk

¶25

[1] 2006 CRI.L.J.4297

P.Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd., No.205/2006 varma Chambers Vs State of A.P.

M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd., No.205/2006 varma Chambers Vs State of A.P.

Bonthala Venkata Chalapati , Venkaiah, Vs The State of a.P., through Sho, Pattikondar P.S.

Suvarna Rekha Exports (P) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Vs Gadamsetty sree Ramulu

Surapaneni Ram Prasad Vs The State