Partly allowed

Ajay Joshi, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jun 2023CRLRC/1203/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque bouncing case (Section 138 NI Act), the High Court upheld the conviction against insufficient funds. However, due to lack of documentary evidence regarding repayment, the Court reduced the six-month sentence to three months while keeping other directions intact.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was allowed in part; the sentence reduced to three months; remaining directions unaltered.

Ajay Joshi, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

[³²⁵¹ ]

I {t

d{E

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,SURENDER

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1203 OF 2018

¶9

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr,P.C against the Order dated 25-04-2018 passed in Crl A.No.297 of 2013 on the file of the Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, confirmrng the Judgment dated 04-05-2013 passed in C C No 376 of 2012 on the file of the lll Special [\4etropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at [\4 iyapur

¶10

Between:

¶11

Ajay Joshi S/o Goverdhanlal Joshi, aged about 28 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.6-485/2, Balanagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶15

Laxminarayana Asawa, S/o Kishanlal Asawa, aged about 34 years, Occ Business, R/o. Plot No.17, Hanuman nagar Colony, Chinthokata, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M/S P. RANA PRAVEER AND

¶18

SRI P. RANA KAMALASAN

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.12O3 of 2018

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 4O 1 of the Code ol Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.), to set aside the judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2O13 by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, confirming the judgment dated 04.05.2013 passed in C.C.No.376 of 2Ol2 by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.lll, Kukatpallir at Miyapur.

¶27

It is the case of the 2nd respondent - complainant that petitioner - accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,OO,000/- from him and executed a promissory note in his favour promising the same with interest @ 1"/o per month. On demand, cheque/Ex.P3 dated 30.O4.2O12 for Rs. 1,2B,OOO/was issued by the petitioner to the complainant" The said cheque was presented by the complainant in his bank for encashment and the same was returned for the reason of insufficient funds'. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the petitioner - accused on 04.05.2O12, however, the petitioner failed to repay the amount covered by the cheque after receipt of notice. Thereby, the petitioner has committed an offence

¶28

)

¶29

punishable under Section l3B of the Negotiable Instruments Act, accordingly complaint was filed.

¶30

Learned Magistrate having examined PWs.l arrd 2 and marking Exs.PI to P7 on behalf of the compiainant and DWs.1 to 3 on behalf of the defence, found that there is legally enforceable debt and petitioner failed to discharge his burden and accordingly, convicted the petitioner - accused, by sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,OOO/- towa;ds compensation. The petitioner - accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2018 before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was dismissed, by confirming the sentence and conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present revision case.

¶31

The main ground on which the petitioner - accused sought for acquittal before the trial Court is that the said amount of Rs.1,00,OOO/ was in fact, taken by him. However, it was returned along with interest of Rs.28,00O/- on 25.05.2012 before DWs.2 and 3. Both the Courts below did not believe the version of petitioner - accused for the reason there being no documentary evidence.

i I

i,4 EI

The signatures on the cheque and promissory note are admitted. Except the oral evidencc of DWs. I to 3, there is no documentary evidence to substanti.rte that the amount \vas repaid and the cheque/Ex.P3 was given as security, u4ren the Ex.P1/Promissory note was executed. For the saicl reasons, I fir'rd no reason to interfere with the orders of conviction passed by both the Courts belou,. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed by both the Courts below to three (3) months. Remaining directions are unaltered.

¶36

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part.

¶37

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stald closed.

¶38

To,

¶39

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// , lLt SECTION OFFICER

¶40

¶41

1 The Ir speciar Metrooor an tr4agistrate, Kukatpaly at Miyapur.(with Records if any)

¶42

2 The Vlll Additionat Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

¶43

3 Two CCs to pUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶44

4 ONC CC tO SRI, M/S P RANA PRAVEER AND P. RANA KAMALASAN, Advocate [OpUC]

¶45

5 Two CD Copies

I{I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2110612023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1203 of 2018

¶53

1 E S TA r6
(
(
,!
coJ O2 AUG 2M 7
i
t
rC gO

¶54

PARTLY ALLOWING THE

¶55

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶56

\7
\ g
-l-
./u

Ajay Joshi, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Joshi, 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

S.Sainath Vs S.Sandhya Rani

K.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

K.Shankar Vs the State of a.P., Acb, Karimnagar

Sandepaka Veeraswamy Vs the State of A.P. and 2 Others

Avadhutha Mahesh, , Uma Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana

Sandepaka Jeevanjyothi Vs The State of Telangana