Allowed

Kathi Peddanna, v. M/s. Sri Rama Eicher Agencies , Tadpatri

Telangana HC9 Aug 2012CRLP/8951/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that since the cheque endorsement indicated the account name, number, and signature did not tally, no prima facie case existed to prove the accused maintained a valid account for the cheque, attracting the section. Consequently, no body can be prosecuted without satisfied offence ingredi

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No.157 of 2007 so far as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned.

Kathi Peddanna, Vs M/s. Sri Rama Eicher Agencies , Tadpatri — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.8951 of 2009

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in C.C No.157 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, registered for offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’)

¶5

The petitioner is the accused and the first respondent is the complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the calendar case.

¶6

The version of the complainant is that the accused gave a cheque for Rs.44,500/- bearing Cheque No.457195 dated 4.8.2006 of Andhra Bank, New Town branch, Ananthapur district towards a legally enforceable debt and it was presented in his bank and then it was sent to the bank of the accused for collection, but it was dishonoured making endorsement “account name and number and signature differs” and thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act for compliance, but the amount covered by the cheque was not paid by the accused.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused would contend that in order to apply Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it should be proved that there was such account of the accused and significantly, the endorsement of the Bank of the accused (Andhra Bank) clearly provides that account name, number and the signature contained on the cheque were different and not tallied with any corresponding signatures and hence there is no prima facie case to prosecute him.

¶8

Section 138 of N.I. Act reads;

¶9

“Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the

¶10

discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid. either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice. to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-

¶11

(a) the cheque has been, presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

¶12

(b) the payee or the holder in due course. of the cheque as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

¶13

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”

¶14

This clearly contemplates that in order to attract this provision, there should be the account of the accused in existence. So, if the accused was not having any account in the Bank in question, the application of the provision does not arise at all. Therefore, as no prima facie case was made out against the accused for the alleged offence, the impugned proceedings are to be quashed. No body should be prosecuted for any offence unless relevant ingredients of the offence are satisfied. The complainant can pursue his legal remedies that may be available otherwise, as per law.

¶15

In the result, the petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in the calendar case so far as Section 138 of N.I. Act is concerned.

¶16

_________________________

¶17

G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 9.8.2012 DA

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶19

Criminal Petition No.8951 of 2009

¶20

9.8.2012

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶23

Criminal Petition No.8951 of 2009

Date: 9.8.2012

Between:

Kathi Peddanna

…Petitioner/Accused

¶28

and

¶29

M/s Sri Rama Eicher Agencies, Tadipathri, Ananthapur district and another. …Respondents

Kathi Peddanna, v. M/s. Sri Rama Eicher Agencies , Tadpatri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kathi Peddanna, v. M/s. Sri Rama Eicher Agencies , Tadpatri

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

B.Narsimha Chary, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Satyanarayana Vs Inspector of Police

Guttula Satyanarayana Vs State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Janapati Murali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Narayanasetti Subrahmanyam, Vs State of A.P.

M/S Swapna Agencies Vs State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor