High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused for Section 138 N.I. Act after the offence was compounded in a separate criminal revision. The court dismissed the current revision as nothing survived for adjudication.
Petitioner's criminal revision dismissed; completed miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OFNOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICESHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL R EVISION CASE NO:103 OF2008
Criminal Revision Case Under Section397 rlw Sec.401 of CriminalReviston case against the order dated21 .11.2007in Crl.A.No. 9/2006on the file of lV Additional District and SessionsJudge, Fast Track Court, RangaReddy District Preferred against the Orderin CC.No. 227112005dt.19.01.2005 on the file of X lt/etropolitan lVagistrate,Cyberabad' RR.District.
Between:
S mt.lV. Rajyalaxrn i A.S.Rao Nagar, H yderabad., W/o. Varada Raju, aged about59 years,Household, R/o
...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT.COMPLAINANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.L PRABHAKARREDDY
Counsel for the RespondentNol : None appeared
Counsel for the RespondentNo.2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
;
THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
Criminal Revision C ase No.1O3 of 2OOB
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/complainant, challenging the judgment, dated 21.11.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2009 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, whereby, the Court below, while confirming the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of one year imposed against the respondent No.1 herein/accused for the oFfence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1BB1 (for short, 'N.LAct'), set aside the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- ordered to be paid to the petitioner herein/complainant by the trial Court.
2, Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ complainant and perused the record.
"Pending revision, the parties moved Crl.M.P.No.3058 of 2010 seeklng permission to compound the offence and the said petition is being allowed by a separate order passed on this day.
Since the offence is compounded, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/appellant for the offence under Section 138 of N.l.Act, and he is acquitted of the offence. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him"
2
Case, shall stand closed.
SD/.CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// Gb, SECTION OFFICER
To,
CDL ,I'II 6. One Spare CopyV
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 611112021
ORDER
CRLRC.No.103 of 2008
\
e ST Te.
1
q
10 JUN zsll .b
o
t
* DESPAl
DISMISSING THE CRL,R.C,
<)
,'7
L.'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision is maintainable after the offence has been compounded in Crl.R.C. No. 1604 of 2007.
What was the disposal of the pending Criminal Revision Case No. 103 of 2008?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. V. Rajyalakshmi A.S. Rao Nagar
P. Chandrasekhara Sastry
State of Andhra Pradesh
SHAMEEM AKTHER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
