Dismissed

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, v. Gunireddy Srinivasulu Reddy

Telangana HC10 Feb 2012CRLRC/1496/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against a lenient fine sentence imposed for cheque dishonour, the High Court dismissed the case noting that the parties had since compromised and the accused deposited the cheque amount, defeating the ends of justice in interference.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed without interfering in the trial court's sentence.

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, Vs Gunireddy Srinivasulu Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1496 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner in this revision case is the complainant in C.C.No.162 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur, Kadapa District. That case pertains to an offence of dishonour of cheque punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for Short ‘Act’).

¶5

2. The grievance of the complainant is that though the trial court by its judgment dated 29.07.2004 convicted the accused in the aforesaid CC for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, it has let him off leniently with a fine of Rs.2,000/- imposing a default clause prison sentence of two months for non-payment of fine. The contention of Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned counsel for complainant, is that the judgment of the trial court which awarded a very lenient punishment is totally wrong in law and such a lenient punishment is not justified and the accused should have been adequately sentenced to undergo imprisonment and also fine or directed to pay compensation. It is true that the sentence imposed by the trial court is a lenient one and it ought not to have been imposed.

¶6

3. It should however be noted that the trial court in its judgment apart from imposing the sentence of fine directed the accused to deposit a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- in the said court immediately towards the cheque amount of Rs.1,24,000/- and the balance being compensation. It is now brought to my notice by Sri P.Veera Reddy that the accused has deposited the amount of Rs.1,60,000/-

¶7

in the trial court and the complainant has withdrawn the said amount and both the parties have compromised.

¶8

4. In the above circumstances, though the judgment of the trial court with regard to the sentence of fine imposed by it can be said to be lenient and further though the trial court should not have imposed the sentence of fine and ordered compensation, in view of the compromise reached by the parties and the fact that the complainant has withdrawn the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the trial court, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would not be defeated if this court does not interfere in the matter. Accordingly this criminal revision case is dismissed.

¶9

________________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶10

10^th February 2012 CVRK

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, v. Gunireddy Srinivasulu Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, v. Gunireddy Srinivasulu 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

Karumuru Sambi Reddy, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Thannuru Srinivasarao Vs The State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

State rep. by Inspector of Police Vs Sri a. Subba Rao

Rasheed Ahmed Junaid Vs Bombay Mercantile Co.Op Bank Ltd.

Gangarapu Venkata Ramana Vs The Samba Murthy s/o chandrapppa Naidu

Gorantla Bhaskara Rao, Vs The State of a.P., through Si of Police, P.S. Narsaraopet