Allowed

Sri G.Shankar Reddy, v. a.Saida Rao

Telangana HC17 Mar 2011CRLRC/273/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court allowed the revision filed by the accused in a cheque dishonour case. Upon hearing parties who admitted to a compromise where the amount was paid, the court recorded the compromise, granted compoundability, acquitted the accused, and set aside the lower courts' conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

Compounding of offence allowed; accused acquitted; impugned judgments, conviction and sentence set aside under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

Sri G.Shankar Reddy, Vs a.Saida Rao — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.273 OF 2005

¶3

AND

¶4

CRIMINAL R.C.M.P. No.952 OF 2011

¶5

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.273 OF 2005

¶7

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶8

The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the sole accused,

¶9

G. Shankar Reddy, assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2003 dated 08-02-2005 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge ( III Fast Track Court ), Nalgonda at Miryalguda confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for six (6) months imposed on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda vide judgment in C.C. No.1471 of 2000 dated 0707-2003 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”).

¶10

2. The revision is filed by the accused mainly on the ground that he is innocent and a false case is foisted against him.

¶11

3. However, now both the parties have come forward jointly and filed the compromise petition in Criminal R.C.M.P. No.952 of 2011 stating that the matter is compromised between them since the amount due under the cheque has already been paid to the complainant by the accused and that the same may be recorded by this Court by setting

¶12

aside the impugned judgment as well as the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court in C.C.No.1471 of 2000 dated 07-07-2003.

¶13

4. The complainant A. Saida Rao and the accused G. Shankar Reddy as well as their counsel are present in the Court and both the parties are identified by their respective counsel.

¶14

5. On being questioned by this Court, both the parties have admitted that they have compromised the matter between them out of Court and the complainant has reported that he has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in question from the accused towards full and final settlement of the case, as such, he may be permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused and the accused may be acquitted of the same.

¶15

6. In the circumstances, the compromise entered into between the parties is taken on record and the compromise petition in Criminal R.C.M.P. No.952 of 2011 is allowed permitting the complainant to compound the offence against the accused.

¶16

7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned judgments and conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

¶17

B.N. RAO NALLA, J

¶18

March 17, 2011. PV

Sri G.Shankar Reddy, v. a.Saida Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G.Shankar Reddy, v. a.Saida Rao

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

Shaik Siddiqui Vs The State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.

M/s. Sri Lalitha Devi Finance a registered Firm rep by its Vs D.Chandrasekhar Raju

Boineni Jaya Sankar, Vs Kokkiripati Krishna

Syed Ali Yawar Jaffery, Vs Smt. Syeda Amtul Sakina Abedi

Sri. Kota Laxma Reddy, Vs a.Saida Rao

N. Vedakumar Vs Smt. J. Prameela