Partly allowed

B.Hemanth Reddy, v. G.Ratnakar Reddy

Telangana HC5 Aug 2014CRLRC/624/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment that had quashed conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The Court found the matter needed reconsideration and remitted it to the Appellate Court for fresh decision under Section 401(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of Appellate in Crl.A.No.258/2006 set aside; matter remitted to Appellate Court to decide afresh.

B.Hemanth Reddy, Vs G.Ratnakar Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.624 of 2007

¶3

Date:05.08.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

B. Memanth Reddy ..... Petitioner.

¶6

AND

¶7

G. Ratnakar Reddy and another.

¶8

.....Respondent.

¶9

The Court made the following :

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶11

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.624 of 2007

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This revision is filed by complainant questioning judgment dated 08-01-2007 in Crl.A.No.258/2006 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad whereunder judgment dated 30-06-2006 in C.C.No.921/1999 was set aside.

¶14

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-

¶15

The revision petitioner herein filed complaint against first respondent herein for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the trial Court, after examining witnesses both on behalf of complainant and accused considering evidence, found the first respondent herein guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and aggrieved by the same, first respondent herein preferred appeal to the Court of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by order, dated 08-01-2007, has set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the first respondent herein. Aggrieved by which, present revision is preferred.

¶16

3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the appellate Court wrongly interpreted the objection with regard to service of notice and 15 days time available to the first respondent to pay the cheque amount, but in view of a decision of Supreme Court in C.C. ALAVI HAJI vs. PALAPETTY MUHAMMED, if first respondent is honest in repayment of the cheque amount, he can make avail that facility within 15 days from the date of receipt of the summons from the Court and request the Court to reject the complaint for compliance of the provisions, and, therefore, having not availed that facility, the first respondent cannot take shelter under the said provision. Advocate for first respondent submitted that it is a matter of evidence and no cause of action arose for the complainant and the appellate Court has rightly appreciated the material on record.

¶17

4. On a perusal of the material papers, judgments of the trial and appellate Court and considering the statements of both sides, I feel that the matter requires reconsideration by the appellate Court and therefore, the matter is to be remitted back to the appellate Court under Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C., with a liberty to both parties to urge all these grounds before the appellate Court and the appellate Court has to decide the matter afresh.

¶18

5. For these reasons, judgment of the Appellate in Crl.A.No.258/2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate Court and to decide the same afresh, within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶19

6. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision shall stand disposed of.

¶20

JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶21

Date:05.08.2014

¶22

mrb

B.Hemanth Reddy, v. G.Ratnakar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Hemanth Reddy, v. G.Ratnakar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pachimatla Pushpalatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramdass Sharad Sangale Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Ajay Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Ayub Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Alladi Aruna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravada Thavitamma Vs State of Ap.