Dismissed

M. Sridhar Goud, R.R.Dist. v. Thota Ashok Kumar, R.R.Dist. and Ano

Telangana HC11 Feb 2022CRLRC/2611/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's second criminal revision petition regarding an insufficient sentence and fine in a cheque dishonour case. The court held the petition was not maintainable as the complainant had already filed a revision before the Sessions Court challenging the same sentence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as not maintainable.

M. Sridhar Goud, R.R.Dist. Vs Thota Ashok Kumar… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RAOHA RANI

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:26'll OF 2015

¶6

Criminal Revision Case Under Section 397& 401 of Criminal Revision Case against the Order dated 30-06-2015 in CRl. Revision Petition No. 466 of 2012 on the file of the Additional lVetropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of communal offence cases cum Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad Preferred against Order dated 09-0.1-2012 in C.C.No. 134 of 2011 on the file of the XIX Additional chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate , Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

M, Sridhar Goud. S/o. Srinivas Rao, Occ: Business, r/o. H.No. 10-6-71 , Brindavan Colony, Saroonagar, Ranga Reddy District. T.S.

¶9

...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT/REVISION PETITIONER AND

¶10

1 . Thota Ashok Kumar,S/o. Venkatanarayana Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 4-147 , Sri Venkateswara Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶11

The State of T.S., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of T.S. Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. J RAJESWAR

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRl. PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR

¶15

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: PUBLIC PROSECUToR^(TG)

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HON-'BLE^{Dr' JUSTICEC' IIADHAIIA\I} C AL RE VISION^{CAS[,No.26 I I OF 20r5}

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This criminal^{revision case is prefemedby thepetitioner/} complainant/revision^{petitioneraggrievedby the orderdated} 30-6-2015 in Crl.R.P.^{No.466 of 2012on the tlle of the Additional} Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge for trial of CommunalOffence Cases} cum VII Additional^{Metropolitan SessionsJudge, Hyderabad' in} imposing fine of^{Rs.9,00,000/-instead ofRs l8,00'000/-and} convicting the^{accused for a pcriod of one yearinsteadof two (2)} years.

¶20

The case of^{the petitioner} -^{complainalltin brief was that he} filed a private^{complaintagainst the I" respondent- accused flor rhe} oflence under Section^{138 of the Negotiable lnstrumentsAct (for} short 'NI Act')^{allegingthatthe accused approachedthe complainant} for a hand loan^{of Rs.9,00,0001 on 15-12'2007 and the complainant} advanced the^{said amount,the accused executed an undertakingletter} promising to repay^{the moneywithin3 months, but failed to repay the} said amount^{and dodgedthe matteron one pretextor. other'On} repeated demands,^{the accused issueda cheque bearing no 186962} dated 25-11-2009^{for Rs.9,00,000i-drawnon Dena Bank' Saroor} Nagar branch,^{Hyderabad towards discharge of legally enforceable} debt. The^{cheque was returned unpaidwith a metno lor the reason ol} "funds insufficienf'^{in the accottntol' accused Thereafier'the} complainant^{issued statutory noticesand hled thc complaint under}

¶21

¶22

Section 138 ofthe NI Act. After recording the swom statefnent of the cornplainant, the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued process. Subsequently, the case was transfered to the XV Additional Judge cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, numbered as CC No. 134 of 2011 and tried by him. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10.000/-. in default of paymenr of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment lor three (3) rnonths for the offence under Section l3g of the NI Act. The revision petitioner/complainant filed a revision petition vide Crl.R.C. No.466 of 2012. The leamed Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the revision by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.10,000/- ro Rs.9,00,000/-, in default to sufler simple imprisonment lor three lnollths, while maintaining the Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount collected, awarded Rs.8,95,0001 to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C

¶23

Aggrieved by the order of the leamed Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in imposing a fine of Rs.9,00,000/- only instead of double the cheque amount i.e. Rs.1g,00,000/_ and convicting the accused only for a period of one year instead of the maximum period of two years, the petitioner/complainant preferred this revision contending that the leamed VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge grossly erred in failing to note the discrepancies and

¶24

the contradictory versions of^{the I't respondent/accused andthatthe} accused was intentionally dragging^{the matter for the past seviral} years, as such he was entitled to a fine/compensation^{for double the} cheque amount and^prayed to allow^{the revision.}

¶25

Heard the leamed counsel fbr the^revision petitioner/complainant and the Iearned^{counselfor the l"r respondent/} accused.

¶26

Now the^point for consideration^{is rvhethera secondrevision} is maintainable by the complainant/revision^petitioner?

¶27

As seen from the facts of the^{case,the complainant preferred} a revision before the leamed^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge, vide} Crl.R.P. No.466 of 2012^{against the judgmentof the XIX Additional} Chief Metropolitan Magistrate^{in CCNo. l34 of 2011.He filed this} second revision before this Coun^{questioningthe inadequacyof the} sentence and fine amount imposed^{by the SessionsCourt. Thepower '} under revision is conferred^{both on the High Courl and Sessions Court} to satisry itself as to the^{correctness,legality or propriety of any} finding, sentence or otder^passed by^{the courts belowSection 397} Cr.P.C. deals with the^power of^{revision by the High Courtas wellas}

¶28

the revision court. It reads^{as under:}

¶29

"397. Calling for records to^{excrciscporvtrs of} revision. (l)'I'he High Court or un) Scssiorrs.ludge ma,'-^call for and cxamine the^{rccord o1' an1'proceeding} before any inf'erior^{CrinrinalCourtsitLratcduithin} its or his local^{jurisdictiontbr lhc purposeol} satisfying itself or^{hinrscll as to the corectness,} legality or propriety ol^{any finding, sentenccor} order,- recorded or^{passed,and as to lhe regularity} of any proceedings of^{strchinferiorCourt, and l'llay,}

¶30

¶31

rvhcn calling for such record, direct that^the execution of any scntence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement,^{tlrat hebe} released on bail or on his orvn bond^pendingthe exarnination olthc record.

¶32

Explanation.- AII Magistrates^whether Executive^or Judicial. and whether exercising original or appellate^{jurisdiction.} shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions .ludgc for the purposes of this subscction and of section 398.

¶33

(2) The powcrs of revision conferred by subsection⁽¹⁾ shall not be exercised in^{relation to any} interlocutory order^passed in any appeal,^inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

¶34

(3) Il an application under this section has been made by any^person either to the High Court^{or to} the Sessions Judge, no further application by^the same pcrson shall be entertained by^{the other} of them."

¶35

As seen lrom Section 397⁽³⁾ Cr.P.C., if^an application^was

¶36

made by the complainant either to the High Court^{or to the Sessions} Court, no funher application can^{be madeby the same person and} even if he made the samc, it shall not^{be entertainedby the other} Court. As the petitioner/complainant^{preferred a revision before the} Sessions Court challenging the^{inadequacyof sentence, the second} levision filed b-"- Jrim before this Coun^{for the verysame reason shall} not be entertained as^per the^provisions ofSection^{397 (3) Cr.P.C.As} such, it is considered fit to^{dismiss the revision.}

¶37

In the result, the Criminal^{RevisionCasefiled bythe}

¶38

petitioner/complainant is dismissed as not^{maintainable.}

¶39

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending,} ifany,^{shallstand closed.}

¶40

SD/.C.V. MALLIKARJ^{U NA VARMA} AS SISTANT REGISTRAR

/iTRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Metropolitan^SessionsJudg e for Trial of communal offence cases cum^{Vll Additional tMetropoli} tan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.(with records,^{if anY)}

¶45

The XIX Additional^{chief Metropolitan Magistrate} '^Hyderabad'

¶46

Two CCs to Public^{Prosecutor,High Court forthe State of Telangana' at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶47

One CC to SRL^{J RAJESWAR Advocate} IOPUC]

¶48

bH-- -

¶49

5 One CC to^{SRl. PADALA PRAVIN KUIVARAdvocateIOPUC]} 6. Two^{CD Copies} 7. One Spare^CoPY CDL SB

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 '110212022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2611 of 2015

¶54

i sti STAI6
o'
(
. .l
ot) 2 g Mlfi 2i122
l-

¶55

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C

¶56

lrc
a1
N)

M. Sridhar Goud, R.R.Dist. v. Thota Ashok Kumar, R.R.Dist. and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sridhar Goud, R.R.Dist. v. Thota Ashok Kumar, R.R.Dist. and Ano

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

Guddeti Maddileti , Madhu Vs Smt. Gandham Srilakshmi

B.Vijay Kumar Reddy, Hyd., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 4 Otrs.

Chinthapally Shashidhar Reddy Vs the State of Ap., Rep Byits Police L.B.Nagar, and Anothers

Omprakash Modani, Nizamabad., Vs Ramesh Kumar Bungh, Hyd and 36 Othrs, Rep Pp.

Dr. Himabindhu Surepally Vs State of Telangana

Thota Ashok Kumar Venkatanarayana, R.R.Dist. Vs M. Sridhar Goud, R.R.Dist. and Ano