Dismissed

Ambati Raja Shekar, Secunderabad, Hyd., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023CRLRC/2043/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision regarding a cheque bounce case. Rejecting arguments for sentence reduction based on custody duration, the Court upheld the appellate court's reduction, sentencing the appellant to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a reduced fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and compensation reduced to Rs.3,00,000/- from the appellate order.

Ambati Raja Shekar, Secunderabad, Hyd., Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2043 OF 2017

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 3971401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgement dated 08.03.2016 made in Crl. A No.'10 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs 86 S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad preferred against the order passed in C.C.No.652 of 20'13 dated 16.12.2014 on the file of the Xl Speciat Magistrate, Secunderabad at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ambati Raja Shekar, S/o A.Krisna Reddy, aged 37 years, Occ Business R/o H.No.4-1-170l40, Road No.4 Gruha Tara Colony, MB.Durga Bollaram post, Alwal, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

...Petitioner/AppellanUAccused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

..... Respondent

¶13

T.Vidyasagar, S/o Venkatramaiah,aged 52 years, Occ Business, Ryo H.No.9-148, Patel colony -Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

¶14

...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI B. MOHAN

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2043 20L7

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The present crimina-l revision case is liled again st the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015, dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolital Sessions Judge, Secunderabad (ior short 'the appellate Court').

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that complainant and the accused are known to each other. During the course of their business on the acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant and requested to arrange a sum of Rs.3,0O,OO0/- as hand loan as the said amount is required for the purpose of construction of his house situated at Alwal, Secunderabad and the accused con'r"inced and inducted the complainant to arrange the above said amount for him, the accused also gave assurance, guarantee, for repayment of hand loan amount borrowed from the complainant.

¶24

¶25

The complainant on the assurance of the^{accused and}

¶26

obliging the request of the accused has^{arrangedandgave} him a sum of Rs.3,00,O00/- during^{the month of August} 2011 and the accused after^{receivingthe same has promised} to repay the said arnount within^{two months from the date of} its receipt. After receiving the^{hand loan amountof} Rs.3,0O,OO0/- from the complainant,^{the accusedhas failed} to repay the said amount to the^{complainantwithin the} agreed period, On^{persisting demandsmade bythe} complainant to repay the said amount,^{the accused has} issued four A/c Payee cheques bearing^Nos.447006to 447008 each for Rs.80,O0O/- and^{the other cheque bearing} No.447OO9 for Rs.60,O0Ol-^{aJl the chequesare drawnon} HDFC Bank Ltd., Alwal Bralch^{for a total sum of} Rs.3,0O,OOO/- and that the complainant^{deposited the said} four cheques issued by the^{accused for encashment in his} bank account in ING Vysya Bank^{Ltd., Bowenpally Branch,} Secunderabad and the said four cheques^{are returned} dishonoured by the accused banker with an^endorsement "Insufficient Funds" with a cheque^{return memo dated}

¶27

¶28

O4.O4.2O12. The complainant filed this complaint after issuance of notice to the accused for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act with a prayer to punish accused ald to award of compensation. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.652 of 2013.

¶29

In support of its case, the complainant examined PWs.l and 2 and got marked Exs.Pl to P12 and on behalf of the defence, examined D.W. 1 and no exhibits were marked.

¶30

After appreciating the ora,l and documentarlr evidences on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.l. Act and convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay the compensation of Rs.4,50,OOO/- to the complainant. Two months time granted for payment.

¶31

Aggrieved by which, the petitioner/appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015 before the appellate Court, the learned appellate Court after examining the material facts before it, has dismissed the Criminal Appeal by

¶32

¶33

,.i

¶34

confirming the calender and^judgment in C.C.No.652 of^2Ol3 (old C.C.No.784 of 2Ol2l, dated 16.12.2014 on the file of the XI Special Magistrate, Secunderabad at Hyderabad.^However in the interest of^justice ald also taking into^{considerationof} the facts arrd circumstances of the case, the^sentenceof imprisonment as imposed at one year RI is^{reducedto six} months RI and also compen sation is reduced^from Rs.4,50,O00/- to Rs.3,O0,OOO/-. Two months^timewas granted to pay the compensationfrom today for^{payment of} compensation.

¶35

7 . Heard learned counsel for the revision^petitioner/ accused, the learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutorappearing} for respondent-State and perused the record.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit^that the petitioner was already in¹ 5 days of^{j udicialcustody} upon execution of NBW's by the learned trial^Courtand thereafter, he was graxted Bail by this^Courtin Cr1.R.C.M.P.No.3273 of 2017, dated 2O.O7.2017.^{He further} submits that it is apparent that the^{petitionerhas undergone} mental agony during the lengthy^{long proceedings initiated}

¶37

¶38

by the trial Court as well as the appellant Court'^Hence seeks to allort, the^present criminal^{revision case.}

¶39

Ms. Sunitha Khakkad, learned counsel^{appearing for} unof{icial respondent would submit that the^interimorder passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3273 of 2017,^dated 20.O7.2OI7 has not yet been compiled with by^{the petitioner.}

¶40

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts^below with regard to guilty of the revision petitioner/ accused and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused did not place anything before this Court, to discredit^the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far^as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence,^it may be mentioned that the offence took place long back and during this period the revision petitioner/ accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/ accused while maintaining the hne imposed by the trial Court.

¶41

¶42

¶43

This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed on merits ald

¶44

so far as the imprisonment is reduced and the compensation amount modified by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1O of 2015 stands good. This Court is inclined to^grant two months time from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order to comply with the interim order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3273 of 2017, dated 20.O7.2017, fatling which, the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and the sentence imposed by the trial Court, which was modified by the appellate Court is set off^to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/ accused, while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner/appellant/ accused

¶45

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶46

closed

¶47

SD/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcro OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs 86 S.Ts^(POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad

¶50

the Xl Special Magistrate, Secunderabad at Hyderabad.

¶51

One CC to SRl. P NAGENDRA REDDY Advocate IOPUC]

¶52

One CC to Sri B. MOHAN, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶53

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Telangana,^Hyderabad.

¶54

Two CD Cooies.\

'}/

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 411012023

1t\ E s'rA l- i:.-
.-,i
e
17 TEB
ool
oE.s PAT C

¶59

ORDER

¶60

CRLRC.N o.2043 ot 2017

¶61

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C

¶62

Ambati Raja Shekar, Secunderabad, Hyd., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambati Raja Shekar, Secunderabad, Hyd., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

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

Challa Veman Reddy Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Subash Kumar Sharma Vs The State Of Telangana

Murakar Pentaji s/o Balaji, Vs The State of A.P. through P.S. Nagireddypet

Nalla Sammaiah , Sommya, Parsigutta, Hyderabad Vs Naveen.B. Mahendra Hills, Hyd., and Anr., Rep. by Pp.

Varikuppala Buchaiah Vs the State of A.P.

B.P.S.Durga Sai Prasad, Yousufguda, Hyd., Vs Smt.B.P.S.v.Kiranmai, Karwan, Hyd.,and 2 Others, Rep Pp.