Revision filed against a non-bailable warrant issued under Section 138 NI Act. The accused claimed resignation as Managing Director but the court held that such fact needs to be proved at the trial stage before entertaining the revision.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1683 oF 2014
Revision filed under Section 3971401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Docket Order dated.07-O1-2014, passed in C.C.No. 359 of 2013, by the Vll Special Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar, at Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
VAKA VASUDEVA RAO, Occ: Former M.D. WR Housing Pvt.Ltd., Fi/o Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSAED
AND
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP. NO :2768 OF 20141
Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C.,praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court maybe pleased to stay of execution of warrants issued against thepetitioner in C.C.No. 359 of 2013 on the file of the Vll SpecialMagistrate Court, L.B.Nagar,at Hasthinapuram, R.R.District.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. THADIKONDAKOTESHWARA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following : ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE lllo.1683 OF 2014
ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision is liled aggrieved by the docket order dated 07.Ol.2Ol4 in C.C.No.359 of !20I3 on the {ile of the learned VII Special Magistrate at Hasthinapurarn, Ranga Reddy District (for short, "the trial court") issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, without service of summons or. the petitioner.
\
t I
2
unconnected with the affairsof the companyas he has retiredas Managing Director of thecompany.Learnedcounselsubmitted that the petitioner was notactively connectedwith the affairs of the company and soughtto allow the Revisionrelying upon the decision of the Apex Court in S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals LimitedVs. NeetaBhalla and anotherl.
7 Accordingly, the CriminalRevision Case is dismissed'
Miscellaleous Petitions,pending if any, shall standclosed'
\
SdI T. SRINIVAS tL2.@+)+ S-fe-'e&''tt&kk1o DEPUTYREGISTRAR
,q/'
//TRUECOPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
B
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/08/2023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.'1683 of 2014
.,,. 3'a4 r
(: :
1,,5 2 I 0[1 2U3
DISMISSING THE CRIMlNAL REVISION CASE
a @c*' trF
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the resignation of the accused as Managing Director needs to be proved by evidence before entertaining the revision against the non-bailable warrant.
Whether the High Court can stay execution of the warrant at this stage without a full-fledged trial to establish resignation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Neeta Bhalla and anotherReferred¶31
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another
3 provisions across 2 enactments
VAKA VASUDEVA RAO
STATE OF TELANGANA
K.SRINIVASA RAO
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
