Dismissed

M/s. Unitek Power Solutions India Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2022CRLRC/624/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was filed against the judgment of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissing an appeal in a cheque bounce case. The High Court examined the evidence and the reasoning of the lower courts, finding no perversity or illegality in the conviction and sentence. The revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case CRL.R.C.No.624 of 2019 was dismissed.

M/s. Unitek Power Solutions India Ltd., Vs The State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

\ t

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY^{OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY}

¶6

CRIMINAL REV ISION^{CASE NO: 624OF 2019}

¶7

criminal Revision^{caseundersection 397 & 401 of cr.P.c against the} Judgment daled 22-03-2019^{Passedin crl.A.No.312of 2016 on the file of the} ' court of the ll Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad confirming the Judgment dated^{31 .03.2016 Passedin c.c.No.288of 2013on the file of the} Court of the XIV Special^{lvlagistrate,Hyderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

fvl/s. Unitek Power^{Solutionslndia Ltd, [/ajidRoad, Alluva, Kochi, Kerala-} 683 101 .

¶10

Ivlr. John Zachariah,^{Sio. Ir/.K. John, Aged about 4'1 years, ManagingDirector,} M/s. Unitek Power Solutions^{India Ltd., P.B No. 77, \Aalid Road,Aluva,(oehi'} Ke rfa I

¶11

Sri l/athew John, Director^{of M/s. Unitek Power Solutions lndia Limited, office} at P.B. No.77, Majid Road,^{Atluva, Kochi,Kerala- 683101} ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{No.1 to 3}

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana,^{Represented by Public Prosecutor'HighCourt of} Judicature of Telangana^{at Hyderabad}

¶14

l\rlls. HBL Power Systems^{Limited.,, Rep. by AuthorizedRepresenta.liveMr. N} Prabhakar lr/urthy,'Sr.^{l,4anageRegd. Office at 8-2-601, Road No.10, Banjara} Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034^- - ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl.^{K. SRINIVASA REDDY}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :^{ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(TG)}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl.^{B.RAJESHWAR REDDY}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HCINOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY} CRL.R.C.No.624 OF 2019

¶20

JUDGMI]NT:

¶21

This criminal revision case^{is filed under Sections 397and} 401 of the Code of Criminal^{Procedure, 1973against the judgment} dated 22.t)3.2019^passed in^{Crl.A.No.312 of 2016, wherein the} learned I. -Additional^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyderabad,} dismissed the appeal confirming^{the judgmentdated 31.03'2016 in} C.C.No.2ti8 of 2013^{passed by the learned XIV Special Magistrate,} Hyderaba,l for the offence under^{Section 138 of the Negotiable} Instruments Act, I 881^(for shorl^{'the Act').}

¶22

Hezrd learned Counsel for^{the revisionpetitioners/accused,} learned Counsel for the^{second respondent/complainantand the} leamed Assistant Public^{Prosecutor lbr the flrst respondent.} Perused the record.

¶23

The second^{respondent/complainant filed aprivate} complaint, under Section^{200 Cr.P.C., against the revision} petitionerr;/accused for the offence^{punishable underSection138 of} the Act. It is stated in^{the complaint that A- Iis a company}

¶24

¶25

represented by its Managing^{DirectorA-2, and A-3 and A-4 are the} Directors of A- I^{company. The complainant company is} manufacturing various^{industrial, telecommunication,railways and} automotive batteries etc.^{A-l purchased variousbatteriesand} made payments^promptly till^{September, 2011. A-1 company'} represented by A-Z^{Managing Director,placed purchaseorderon} 14.12.2011 for^{purchasing batteries mentionedin the purchase} order. The complainant^{company supplied the sameat the office of} the client of the accused^{i.e., Leighton Welspun Contractors Pvt',} Ltd., Dronagiri, Navi^{Mumbaiat the instance of the accused' The} complainant raised^{a tax invoice for the materialsupplied worth '} Rs.8,14,0831. A-l^{company issuedanother purchase order on} 14.12.2011 for^{purchaseof batteries mentioned and accordingly,} the complainant^{supptied the batteries to LeightonWelspun} Contractors Pvt.,^{Ltd.,the client of the accused. The complainant} raised a tax invoice^{for Rs.1,10,41} ,9471-^{for the value of the} batteries supplied.^{The totat value of supplymade by the} complainant company^{is for Rs.1,18,56,030/-. After receivingthe}

¶26

¶27

batteries, the accused company^{paidtechnicalconsultation fee on} installatior of batteries

¶28

It is further stated in the complaint^{that the amount covered} by the above two invoices^{haveto be paid within 45 days from} the date of invoice. After expiry of^{45 days period,the} representar.ive of the complainant^{companyrequestedthe accused} to pay the sum of Rs.1,18,56,030/-.^{After repeated requests,the} accused issued cheque bearing^{No.008660 dated 27.10.201 2 drawn} on Axis Bank. Aluva Branch for an^{amount of Rs. 1,18,56,030/- in} favour of the complainant company.^{Whenthe complainant} . company rresented the cheque^{for collection with its banker on} 24.12.201')-, the same was dishonoured^{and returnedunpaidfor the} reason 'insufficient funds' vide^{chequereturn memo dated} 24.12.201')-. Thereupon, the^{complainant company got issueda} legal notice dated 17.01.2013^{calling uponA-1 to A-4 to pay the} cheque arnount within 15^{days tiom the date of receipt of} notice. The notice was seled^on A-l^{companyon 21.01.2013.} A-2, A-3 and A-4 have not claimed^{the notices,as per the postal} endorsemt:nt. The legal^{noticeswere also sent A-1 to A-4 to their}

¶29

¶30

factory address and they^{were retumed undelivered with an} endorsement'refused'.

¶31

It is further stated in the^{complaint that A-3 and A-4are the} directors of A- 1^{companyand they are responsiblefor the} management of business^{affairs of A- 1 companyas they are} looking after^{purchase and financial affairs of A-1 company'} A-2 signed and issued the^{abovementioned cheque in favour of the} complainant within^{the full knowledgeof A-3 and A-4, who were} actively parlicipating^{in the daily business affairsof A-1 company'} Later, the complainant^{filedthe presentcomplaint for the offence.} punishable under Section^{138of the Act.}

¶32

During trial, PWs.l to^{3 wereexaminedon behalf of the} complainant and^{Exs.P-1to P-22 were marked,besidesExs'X-1to} X-4. D.Ws.1 & 2^{were examined on behalf of the accused and} Exs.D-1 & D-2^{were marked,besidesExs.X-1to X-4'}

¶33

The trial Court, after^{consideringboth the oraland} documentary evidence,^{found the accusedguiltyfor the offence} punishable under Section^{138 of the Act, convicted and sentenced}

¶34

¶35

A-2 and .,-3, representing the A-1^{company,him to undergo} rigorous inrprisonment for a^period ofone^{year and to pay a fine of} Rs.1,55,02,000/-^jointly and in default to undergo^suffersimple imprisonment for six months. The trial courl^{furtherordered the} accused to pay compensation of^{Rs.1,55,02,000/-(cheque amount} of Rs.1,1ti,56,030/- plus interest @ 9%^{per annnum) to the} complaina:rt. Aggrieved by the said^judgment, the^petitioner prefered Cr1.A.No.3 12 of 2016 before the ll-Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.^{The learned Sessions} Judge by^judgment dated 22.03.2016 dismissed the^{appeal by} confirminp; the^judgment dated 3¹ .03.2016^{passed by the trial court} in C.C.No 288 of 2013. Aggrieved by the same,^{the accusedfiled} the present revision.

¶36

The trial coufi at page 9 of its^judgment observed al^{para 14} that the cc,mplainant through the evidence of^{P.W.1,corroborated} by the evirlence of P.Ws.2 and 3,^{proved that A-1 company placed} purchase c,rder rvith the complainant company under^{Exs.P- 14 and} P-15 to deliver the batteries to Lighton^{Welspun Contractors Pvt.,} Ltd., Navi Mumbai; that under invoices^{Exs.P-16and P-17 in the}

¶37

¶38

name of A-1 company batteries^{were delivered under Exs'P-l9to} P-21 delivery challans to the^{above said company;thatA-1} company, represented by^{A-2 issued Ex.P-2cheque dated} 27.10.2012 for Rs.1,18,56,030/-^{in favour of the complainant} company towards^{the dischargeof legally enforceableliability,} being the cost of batteries^{supplied; and that A-2, being the} Managing Director, A-3^{and A-4 being the directors of A-1} company, have actively^{pafiicipatedin the dayto-daybusiness} affairs of A-1 company^{and all of them wereresponsible for} issuing Ex.P-2 cheque^{in favour of the complainant company'}

¶39

g. Further, the trial court^{has elaboratelyand meticulouslydeali} all the documents, the^{legal presumptions under Sections 118 and} 139 of the Act and^{held the complainantpositiveiy provedthat} Ex.P-2 cheque is suppofted^{by legally enforceableliabilitythatis} worth batteries supplied^{to A-1 companyand that Ex.P-2 supported} by consideration is in^{favour of the complainant. The accused} failed to rebut the said^{presumptions. The second respondenthas} placed cogent and convincing^{evidence before the trial court that} the accused issued^{chequeand whenpresentedit was unpaid for}

¶40

i I

¶41

¶42

the reason 'insufficient funds' on^{24.12.2012and thereuponthe} complainant got issued a legal^{notice Ex.P-4 dated 17.01.2013} calling upc,n A-1 to A-4 to pay the cheque amount^{within l5 days.} The notice was serued on A-1 company,^{whereas the noticesent to} A-2 to A-1 to their office and residential address were retumed unserved. The accused neither choose to^{pay chequeamount nor} issued reply.

¶43

Aparl from analyzing the^judgment of the trial court, coming to the^judg,mer.rt of the appellate court, the appellate^{court has also} elaboratell' dealt with all the contentions raised by^{learned counsel} for the rer, ision petitioners and confirmed the conviction^recorded by the trial court.

¶44

I l. Going by the^judgments of the courls below^{and the entire} material a.,railable on record, it is seen that both the courls below have righly held that the second respondent/complainant^has establisherl the guilt of the revision^{petitioners/accusedunder} Section 138 ofthe Act. The reasoning assigned by^{the courtsbelow} in supporl of its findings in favour of the second^respondent/

¶45

¶46

complainant^{and against the revisionpetitioners/accused'is fully} justified and there is^{no perversity or illegality' The courts below} have rightly^{appreciated the evidenceand materials and applied the} legal aspects^{in proper perspectiveand in accordance with the} settled^{legal position. Ifind no reason to interferewiththe} concurrent^{findingsof the Coufis below with regard to the} conviction^{and sentence'No interference is warranted in this} regard.^{Thereis no merit in the revisionand the same is liable to} be dismissed.

¶47

t2. Accordingly,^{the criminai revisioncase is dismissed'}

¶48

1 3. Miscellaneous P^{etitions, if any,pending shallstand closed'}

sD/-KSRrtIt?s[tR

//rRUE^{COPY/ t}

h./

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1 Thc ll Aclditional t/letropolitan^{Sessions Judge' Hyderabad'} 2 J +[?tg.'BT'.1^{lt::1ff;!l sii'"#,?31, n'nn court ror the State or} 4 5 Ell, H€ }l *i^{f]fl [[feli:.rui,:lx?::',1r%tsstr} 6 Two CD^CoPies 7 One SPare^CoPY

CDL gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010O12022

ORDER

CRL.R.C.No.624 ol 2019

¶60

{ e STATE o
.j [ 2 rxG 2[?1 a)
-!'
'-.t-"

¶61

DISMISSING TIlECRL.R.C.

M/s. Unitek Power Solutions India Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Unitek Power Solutions India Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

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

G.Maheswar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Aslam Hamid Khan and 6 Others Vs State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Mohd. Yunus Saleem Vs Syeda Zeeshan Azhar

Mekala Anjaneyulu Vs Mekala Manga

Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, Hyd Vs State of a.P., Rep. through P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Chetan Tendulkar Vs the State of Ap., and Another