Dismissed
Preethi Goyal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Telangana HCCRLRC/2566/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION…
What the court decided
AI extract
SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2566 of 2013
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerAccused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-state.
This criminal revision case is filed against the order passed by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2012. The petitioner herein was tried for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.503 of 2010. In the course of trial, the complainant wanted to file a money lenders license relating to the period of the transaction in question. He filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to receive the money lenders license. It was submitted before the learned Magistrate that by mistake he filed Ex.P7 money lenders license, which does not relate to the period of transaction. While preparing for the arguments, the complainant’s counsel realised that Ex.P7, which was earlier filed does not relate to the relevant period and therefore he wanted to file the money lenders license relating to the relevant period. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition and also pronounced the judgment simultaneously on the same day acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The crucial question before the learned Magistrate was whether there was a legally enforceable debt or liability. The complainant wanted to discharge his burden by producing the money lenders license for the relevant period. As the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition and also the complaint filed by the complainant, he preferred criminal Appeal No.291 of 2012 against the judgment passed in C.C.No.503 of 2010.
In the criminal appeal, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment dated 13.01.2012 passed by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for disposal afresh. Questioning the said judgment, the present revision case is preferred by the accused.
The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge rightly observed that when the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed to receive the money lenders license, he ought to have allowed the petitioner – complainant by giving reasonable time to prefer
a revision against the order passed in the petition, but erroneously disposed of the C.C. itself simultaneously on the same day, which caused prejudice to the complainant. This Court is also of the view that the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the petition filed by the petitioner-complainant to mark the money lenders license to lead evidence in support of his contention that on the crucial date he was having money lending license. Hence, I do not find any error of jurisdiction committed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in remitting the matter back to the learned Magistrate for fresh disposal. I see absolutely no merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the stage of admission. Miscellaneous petitions filed along with the revision case also shall stand dismissed.
R. KANTHA RAO, J.
19th December 2013, Rns
Accused (Petitioner)
State (Respondent)
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court