Allowed

M/S. Om Surya Electronics Pvt.Ltd. v. M/S. a-Z Marketing and the State of A.P.

Telangana HC17 Nov 2021CRLRC/1727/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. while a dishonoured cheque case. Court enhanced fine to double the cheque amount and directed imprisonment in default, following its own previous batch judgment.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to pay fine equal to double the cheque amount of Rs.19,000; in default, undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.

M/S. Om Surya Electronics Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S. a-Z Marketing… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

¶3

AT HYOERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶7

CRIM INAL REVISION CASE NO: 1727 OF 2006

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 40'1 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by

¶9

the Judgment dated.08.08.2006 passed in C.C.No.1640 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the XIV Additional Chief tMetropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/s Om Surya Electronics Private Limited, represented by its Manager Arun Kumar, S/o. Late Bhola Prasad, aged about 38 years, Office at 16, Model House, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶12

... Petitione r/Com plaina nt

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Mls A-Z N/arketing, rep. by its Proprietor Zaher-ul-Haq , S/o. Md.lVlazhar-ul-Ha q aged about 39 years, Rlo.20-4-29, New Bus Stand, C harminar, Hyderabad - 2

¶15

.. . RespondenUAccused

¶16

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶17

...Respondent

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. PRABHAKAR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON.BLE DT. JUSTICE^{SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶22

Crim nal Revisi on Case N^o.L727ot2006

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case,^{under Sections 397 & 401 of} Cr.P.C., is filed by the^{petitioner/complainant,challenging the} judgment, dated 08.08.2006,^passed in C.C.No.1640^{of 2003by the} XIV Additional Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrateat Hyderabad'}

¶25

Heard the learned^{counsel for the petitioner/complainant,} learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutorappearingfor respondentNo'2-} State and^{perused the record.}

¶26

3, Notice sent to respondent^{No.l/accused to the address} mentioned in the cause-title,^{returned un-served. Hence,noticeon} respondent No.1/accused^{is deemed to have beenserved'}

¶27

4, As seen from the^{materialplaced on record, the dishonoured} cheque was for an amount of^{Rs.19,000/-, vide cheque No'549439,} dated 25.06.2002.^{Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant} would submit that the subject^{matter of this criminalRevision case is} squarely covered by^{the judgment,dated 26.02.2020,passed by this} Court in Crl.R.C.No.1772^{of 2006 and batch, wherein,this Court,} having elaborately dealt^{with the subjectmatter and reFerringto the} decisions of the^{Hon'bleApex Court in Meters and Instruments} Private Limitecl and another^{Vs, Kanclran Mehta {(2018)1} Supreme Court Cases^{560)and Somnath Sarkar Vs' Utpal Basu} Mallick and another {(2013)^{16 Supreme Court Cases 465},} enhanced the fine amount to double^{the cheque amount in each case} and ultimately requesied this Court to dispose of the^{instantCrinlinal} Revision Case on the same lines

¶28

)

¶29

The Iearned Assistant pubric prosecutor has fairry conceded the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

6, In view of the above submissions and following the judgment, dated 26.02.2020, passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.17t2 of 2006 and batch, the respondent No.1/accused is directed to pay the fine amounting to double the cheque amount to the petitioner/complainant, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thirty (30) days.

¶31