Remanded

Kalidindi Venu Prasada Raju, v. Pusapati Veera Venkata Narasimha Raju

Telangana HC20 Jan 2012CRLRC/1664/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision regarding a cheque-dishonour case, this court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the appellate court for fresh disposal after affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard, subject to the deposit of costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appeal remanded to appellate court for fresh disposal after hearing; petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 costs within two months.

Kalidindi Venu Prasada Raju, Vs Pusapati Veera Venkata… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1664 OF 2004

¶3

Date: 20-01-2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kalidindi Venu Prasad Raju. - - - Petitioner/

¶6

Appellant/ Accused.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Pusapati Veera Venkata Narasimha Raju.

¶9

2. Pusapati Venkata Laxmi. 3. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,

¶10

Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Respondents/ Complainants.

¶11

This Court made the following :

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶13

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1664 OF 2004

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Heard Sri S.V.R. Subramanyam, representing the petitioner’s counsel Sri M. Surya Kumar and Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel appearing for the complainants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶16

2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.133 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka (trial court). That case was brought by the complainants alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶17

3. The trial Court by its judgment dated 16-06-2003 convicted the petitioner of the offence under section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to four months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default clause prison sentence of 45 days for non-payment of fine. Assailing the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2003. The

¶18

appellate court i.e. the Court of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, by its judgment dated 23-06-2004, dismissed that appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court in all respects. The petitioner has come up with this revision questioning the said appellate judgment.

¶19

4. Sri S.V.R. Subramanyam mainly pointed out that para- 3 of the judgment of the appellate court itself would show that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing by it and the said court proceeded to decide the matter without hearing the petitioner. It is true, para-3 of the appellate court’s judgment would read that the petitioner’s counsel or the petitioner were not heard as they were absent. It may at the same time be noted that the said para-3 of the appellate court’s judgment would also read that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity, but he could not avail it and since the criminal appeal should be disposed of on merits even in the absence of the accused or his counsel, the appellate court disposed of it on merits.

¶20

5. In this revision, Sri S.V.R. Subramanyam points out that as the scope of this revision is limited, the petitioner may be given one more opportunity to contest the matter before the appellate court both on facts and law as the entire matter would be before the appellate court. Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi opposed this request.

¶21

6. It may however be noted that the power of this court in a revision is very limited and this Court cannot once again re-appreciate the evidence and as the whole matter will be at large before the appellate court it can again go into the evidence after hearing the petitioner’s counsel and decide the controversy regarding the establishment or otherwise of the offence in question. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would not be defeated if the matter is sent back to the appellate court for disposal afresh after giving due opportunity to the petitioner’s counsel subject to compensating the complainants in terms of costs.

¶22

7. Accordingly, the order impugned in this revision is set aside and the appeal is sent back to the appellate court so that it can dispose of the matter afresh. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by way of costs in the appellate court within two (2) months from today and, in default, the appellate court is at liberty to dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law. On such deposit, the complainants are also permitted to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. The Registry shall transmit the case records immediately to the appellate Court. This Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶24

Dated:20.01.2012. Dsh/Cvrk

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶26

¶27

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1664 OF 2004

¶28

(Date.20-01-2012).

¶29

Dsh.

Kalidindi Venu Prasada Raju, v. Pusapati Veera Venkata Narasimha Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalidindi Venu Prasada Raju, v. Pusapati Veera Venkata Narasimha Raju

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

J.Shravan Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ponnam Ravichandra, A(2) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Bhasker, Vs The State of A.P.

K.Prabhakar Vs Angala Srinivas

Shaik Nayeem Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.a.Azeez, Vs T.Ramakrishna Rao