Dismissed

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

Telangana HC10 Feb 2012CRLRC/1716/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 403 CrPC against conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court dismissed the revision. Despite the petitioner's continuous absence, the court exercised its discretion to adjudicate on merits, finding no ground to disturb the lower courts' conclusions.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed on merits. The previous appellate judgment confirming conviction and sentence is upheld.

Rasheed Ahmed Junaid Vs Bombay Mercantile Co.Op Bank Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1716 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

There was no representation for petitioner on 20^th January 2012 and today also there is no representation though the matter is posted under the caption “for Judgment”. Smt. V.Dyumani who is appearing for the first respondent Bank is present.

¶5

2. It may be noted that according to Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), a party has no right to be heard in a revision but the said provision gives a discretion to this court even to hear the party. Thus what should be noted is that Section 403 Cr.P.C empowers this court to dispose of a revision on merits even in the absence of a party. In view of the continuous absence of the petitioner and his counsel, the matter which is of 2004 has been taken up for disposal on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶6

3. The petitioner in this revision is the accused in C.C.No.469 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad (trial court). He was in the said case tried on a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘Act’). After considering the matter the trial court by its judgment dated 30.07.2003 accepted the complainant’s case on merits and found the accused guilty and convicted him of the charge under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause prison sentence of one month for non-payment of fine. Assailing the above judgment of the trial court the accused filed

¶7

Crl.A.No.341 of 2003. That appeal was dismissed by the appellate court i.e. the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by its judgment dated 24^th September 2004. It is questioning that judgment, the accused has come up with this revision.

¶8

4. The first respondent is Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited and it is the complainant in the case. Its complaint is that the accused borrowed certain amount from it and by 7^th August 2000 the outstanding due was Rs.5,98,165-88ps and the accused has in part discharge of that liability gave a cheque for Rs.40,000/drawn on the savings bank account of the accused which he held in the complainant Bank and the said cheque get dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The plea of the complainant is that though the accused promised that he would credit the funds into the savings bank account, he did not do so. The version of the complainant is that it after issuing the statutory notice and following the procedure it had filed the complaint.

¶9

5. The details of the evidence let in by the complainant and the accused are all mentioned in the judgment of the trial court. After considering the evidence of P.W.1 an officer of the complainant Bank and considering the documents filed by it, the trial court concluded giving categorical findings that the accused has given the cheque in question which was marked as Ex.P.2 and that it was dishonoured or could not be encashed for want of funds and on that premise it accepted the complainant’s case and convicted the accused of the aforesaid offence and sentenced him accordingly.

¶10

6. The appellate court also considered the matter and the evidence let in by the complainant in detail and found no reason to

¶11

disagree with the conclusion of the trial court and it accordingly confirmed the conviction and sentences. A perusal of the reasons given by both the trial court and the appellate court would show that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with their conclusions and even the sentences are not harsh.

¶12

7. It would be interesting to note that earlier the accused filed a petition for recording compromise reporting that his client was ready to pay the cheque amount. Smt V.Dyumani the learned counsel appearing for the complainant on the said date reported that the Bank is not agreeable for the compromise and therefore the matter should be disposed of on merits. As an offence though compoundable cannot be compounded unless the complainant or the victim agrees for the same and as the complainant in this case was not agreeable for compromise, the said petition filed by the accused was dismissed and the matter has been taken up for disposal on merits. I have already considered the merits of the matter in the previous paragraphs of this judgment and they show that there is no reason to disturb the appellate court judgment.

¶13

8. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons it follows that this criminal revision case has to fail on merits and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶15

10^th February 2012 CVRK

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, Vs Gunireddy Srinivasulu Reddy

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