Dismissed

Ramesh Kumar Asawa v. M/S Chandra Bhusha Designers

Telangana HC22 Nov 2012CRLRC/955/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the Sessions Judge's acquittal under Section 138 NI Act. The acquittal was upheld because the complainant failed to reconcile the discrepancy between his name and the name on the dishonoured cheque, failing to prove the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of the lower appellate court's judgment acquitting the 2nd respondent of the offence under Section 138 NI Act.

Ramesh Kumar Asawa Vs M/S Chandra Bhusha Designers — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:955 OF 2005

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The petitioner-complainant filed this revision aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.3.2005 passed in Crl.A.No.282 of 2004 by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶4

The petitioner-complainant is a proprietor of Surekha Enterprises and carrying on business in wholesale distribution of plywood material and he supplied material to the respondentsaccused worth Rs.50,000/- on 6.9.2002 and the respondents-accused issued Ex.P1 cheque and on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured. In spite of notice, the respondents-accused did not make any payment.

¶5

In order to substantiate its case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got Exs.P1 to P16 marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondentsaccused.

¶6

On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the 2^nd respondent-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd respondent-accused filed the appeal viz., Crl.A.No.282 of 2004 before the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal acquitting the 2^nd respondent accused. Hence, the petitioner-complainant filed the present revision.

¶7

There is no representation either on behalf of the petitioner or

¶8

on behalf of the respondents-accused.

¶9

Perused the material available on record.

¶10

The lower appellate Court recorded reasons for acquitting the 2^nd respondent-accused. From the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment under revision, it is evident that the name of the complainant is mentioned as Ramesh Kumar Asawa and the name mentioned in Ex.P-1 cheque is Ramesh Chander Asawa and no explanation is given with regard to the discrepancy in the name of the complainant. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that the complainant stated his name as Ramesh Kumar Asawa and he is doing business under the name and style of M/s Surekha Enterprises. The complainant did not give any explanation about the discrepancy in the cheque marked as Ex.P-1 issued in the name of Ramesh Chander Asawa. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 produced Exs.P15-photocopy of identity card issued by Election Commission of India in the name of Ramesh Chander Asawa and Ex.P16-photocopy of Member identity card issued by A.P.Plywood Laminate and Glass Dealer’s Association showing the name as Ramesh Chander Asawa. Exs.P15 and P16 show the name as Ramesh Chander Asawa. As such, Exs.P15 and P16 are not helpful to the complainant to prove that the name of the complainant as Ramesh Chander Asawa in whose name Ex.P1cheque is issued. It is recorded in the judgment under appeal that the contents of Ex.P-11 receipt issued by Government of A.P. E-Seva show the name as Ramesh Chander Asawa (M/s. Ply wood shop) and the name of plywood shop of Ramesh Chander Asawa is not appearing in the receipt marked as Ex.P-11. Ex.P4 office copy of notice got issued by the complainant to the accused the name of proprietor of M/s. Surekha Enterprises is given as Ramesh Chander Asawa, but not as Ramesh Kumar Asawa.

¶11

The reasons recorded by the lower appellate Court clearly go to show that the complainant before the trial Court is Ramesh Kumar Asawa, but in Ex.P-1 cheque, the name is mentioned as Ramesh

¶12

Chander Asawa. The complainant did not give any explanation with regard to the discrepancy in his name. In the absence of any such explanation, it cannot be said that the cheque in question was given to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt. In these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the judgment under appeal does not warrant any interference by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment of the lower appellate Court.

¶14

____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated: 22.11.2012 Nn

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶16

CRL.R.C.NO.955 OF 2005

¶17

Nn.

¶18

22.11.2012

Ramesh Kumar Asawa v. M/S Chandra Bhusha Designers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Asawa v. M/S Chandra Bhusha Designers

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

Puruluri Prasad, (a 2) Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Mohd. Yousuf, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Sunkara Venkata Bulli Sudhir, Vs M.Srinivasa Rao

Boya Venkappa, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Kumure Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

C.R.Sridhar, Vs The State rep.by its S.I., of Police, Yadamari P.S.,Chittoor