Remanded

Malati Ravindra Shah v. Goodwin Pharma Chem Laboratories rep.by its proprietor

Telangana HC7 Apr 2011CRLRC/784/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition regarding cheque dishonour under the NI Act. The Court remitted the matter to the first appellate Court for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both sides, suspending the execution of the sentence during the remand.

What did the court decide?

The matter remitted to the first appellate Court for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both parties; execution of sentence suspended.

Malati Ravindra Shah Vs Goodwin Pharma Chem Laboratories… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.784 of 2005

¶2

Date:07-04-2011

¶3

Between:

¶4

Malati Ravindra Shah and another.

¶5

………..Petitioners

¶6

AND

¶7

Goodwin Pharma Chem Laboratories rep. by its proprietor G.V. Seshagiri Rao Kothapet, Guntur and another

¶8

……….Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.784 OF 2005 JUDGMENT:

¶10

A-1 - a proprietary concern, A-2 - the proprietor of A-1 and A-3 - the director of A-1 concerned, were prosecuted and tired for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) in C.C. No.161 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Guntur and the said Court, by its judgment dated 10-02-2003, while acquitting A-3 for the said offence found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, and accordingly, convicted them for the said offence. However, A-2, being the proprietor of A-1 alone was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-,

¶11

in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the said offence.

¶12

2. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction as passed by the trial Court, A-1 and A-2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. However, since both the parties failed to advance their arguments and remained absent, the first appellate Court taking the

¶13

material on record into consideration decided the appeal and found both A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and thereby dismissed the appeal by confirming their conviction and also sentence of A-2, being the proprietor of A-1, passed by the trial Court. Assailing the said judgment of the first appellate Court, A-1 and A-2 preferred this revision, inter alia, on the following grounds:

¶14

(i) that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective; and

¶15

(ii) that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact

¶16

that there was a running khatha (account) between the parties and at the instance of the respondentcomplainant, the revision petitioners (A-1 & A-2) along with A3, who was acquitted by the trial Court, had mailed 16 signed cheques, but without mentioning the dates and figures to the respondent - complainant towards security and with instructions not to present the said cheques without prior intimation to them and that the respondent - complainant in violation of and in contravention of the said instructions, presented those cheques for payment.

¶17

3. It is in the evidence of PW.1 - the proprietor of the complainant firm, that the accused were intimated on telephone about presentation of the cheques for payment. Therefore, the trial Court,

¶18

having regard to the said evidence and relying on the provisions of Section 139 of the Act providing for presumption that the cheques were issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and since the said presumption was not rebutted by adducing appropriate evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of A-1 and A-2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners - A- 1 and A-2 that as the first appellate Court had decided the matter based on the material available on record since there was no representation from either side for a quite a long time despite several adjournments, the revision petitioners, A-1 and A-2, realized that somehow they could not prosecute their case diligently and the same led to their predicament.

¶19

In the circumstances, now it is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners - A-1 and -2 that the matter may be remitted back to the first appellate Court to enable the parties to advance their arguments and then to decide the matter on merits.

¶20

4. In the above circumstances of the case particularly in view of the fact that the first appellate Court decided the appeal without hearing both sides and also having regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners - A-1 and A-2 to remit back the matter to the first appellate Court for its disposal on merits, this Court is of the view that without going into the merits of the case,

¶21

it is appropriate to remit the matter back to the first appellate Court for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both sides and the same would

¶22

meet the ends of justice.

¶23

5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the matter shall be remitted back to the first appellate Court with a direction to the said Court to issue notices to both the parties, hear them and then decide the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made by this Court, within a period of three (3) months from today. Till disposal of the first appeal by the first appellate Court, the execution of sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners – A- 1 and A-2 passed by the trial Court is suspended.

¶24

6. With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Revision case stands disposed of.

¶25

JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

¶26

Date:07-04-2011 Mrb/PV

Malati Ravindra Shah v. Goodwin Pharma Chem Laboratories rep.by its proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malati Ravindra Shah v. Goodwin Pharma Chem Laboratories rep.by its proprietor

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

G. Shankar Vs S. Srinivas

G. Shankar, Vs K. Srinivas

G. Shankar Vs M. Dhan Raj

Emmada China Veera Bhadra Rao, Vs Gudivada Venka Siva Ramesh

Amudala Parameswara Rao, Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

K.v.v.Subba Rao Vs Lanka Veeraju