Allowed

Velampalli Srinivasa rao. v. B.Subba Rao.

Telangana HC30 Oct 2018CRLRC/1494/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court modified the sentence imposed for cheque dishonour. Considering the petitioner's age and ailments, the term of simple imprisonment was substituted with a higher fine and increased imprisonment in default, with the fine paid to the complainant as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs.50,000 within eight weeks, failing which the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for four months.

Velampalli Srinivasa rao. Vs B.Subba Rao. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.1494 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.08.2005 in Crl.A.No.30 of 2004 passed by learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment in C.C.No.439 of 1999 passed by learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, convicting the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) and sentencing him to suffer SI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer SI for 15 days.

¶5

When the Crl.R.C. came up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged person of around 64 years and that he is suffering with old age ailments and further, he is financially hard pressed and earlier he filed I.P.No.75 of 1997 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and considering the same the sentence may be modified.

¶6

In this case, notice sent to the 1^st respondent/complainant was returned with the endorsement “ insufficient address ”. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that notice was sent to the same address as mentioned in C.C.No.439 of 1999.

¶7

¶8

Considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioner regarding the plight of the petitioner, while confirming the conviction passed by the Courts below, the sentence is modified and the petitioner/accused is directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- within eight (8) weeks from the date of this order, failing which he shall suffer SI for four (4) months. On such deposit, the said amount shall be paid to the 1^st respondent/complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

¶9

This Criminal Revision Case is allowed to the extent mentioned supra.

¶10

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶11

closed. _________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 30-10-2018 Murthy

Velampalli Srinivasa rao. v. B.Subba Rao.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velampalli Srinivasa rao. v. B.Subba Rao.

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

Tanikonda Kiran Kumar Vs the State of A.P.

Kandula Bapuji Vs Sri Abdul Nabi

Kokkirigadda Devaraj Vs the State of A.P.

M.Madan Kumar, Vs The State of A.P.

M.Gopal Vs Smt. M.Umamaheshwari , Padmavathi and 3 Others

Leela Veera Venkata Naga Laxmi, Krishna District Vs Lella Laxmi Narasamma, Krishna District and 4 Others, Rep. Pp.