Dismissed

P.Anjaneyulu Gupta, Ramnagar, Hyderabad v. Dr.Syed Sirajuddin Quadri, Koti, Hyd and Anr, Rep. by Pp.

Telangana HC11 Dec 2023CRLRC/2532/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an appellate order that acquitted the respondent in a cheque dishonour case. The revisioner contended the trial court was correct, but the bench found no merit in the challenge and upheld the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed as devoid of merits; the acquittal of the respondent was affirmed.

P.Anjaneyulu Gupta, Ramnagar, Hyderabad Vs Dr.Syed… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^32ee l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2532OF 2011

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.PC against the Judgment 2O-O9-2O11 made in Crl.A.No.2g of 2010 on the file of the ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad preferred against the Judgment dated 08-0'l-2010 passed in C.C.No.443 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the XIV Additional Judge, cum XVlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.Anjaneyulu Gupta, Ramnagar, Sio. Late P.V.Venkata Veeraiah, Occ: Business FJo. 1-9-221, Near Baptist Church, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...Petitioner/ComplainanURespondent

¶11

AND

¶12

Dr.Syed Sirajuddin Quadri, S/o. Syed Raheemuddin Quadri Business Rl/o. H.No. 11-2-228,1 Nampally Market, Hyderabad, or H.No.^'16-81 and 681l1lMl1 Aiyangar Plaza Complex, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RespondenUAcbused/Appellant .-:

¶14

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶15

'.4.

¶16

...Respondent

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S Srinivasa Sharma

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None Appeared

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri K Ramakotaiah, Assistant Public Prosecutor representing Public Prosecutor

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

1:.

¶22

.4,

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2532 OF 2OLL

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case is Iiled by the^petitioner under Sections 397 and.401 ol Criminal Procedure^{Code(for short'Cr.P.C.J} aggrieved by the^judgment in Criminai^{Appeal No.29} of^2010dated 2O.O9.2O11 on the hle of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused/ respondent^No. 1 to undergo simple imprisonment f6r a^period of one year and to^pay a l-rne of Rs.S,OOO/- in default of payment of hne amount to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days ordered vide^judgment dated 06.01.20 10 in CC No.443 of 20O8 passed by the learned XIV Additional Judge-cumXVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad was set aside acquitting the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short'NI Act').

¶26

Heard Sri S. Sreenivasa Sarma, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Ramakotaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent No.2. None appeared for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

¶27

CC No.443 of 20O8 was registered against the 1st respondent herdn under^Section19O and 2OO of Cr.P.C.. for the

¶28

Page 2 of6

¶29

offences under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of NI Act for dishonour of cheque bearing No.223055 dated 15.11.2005 for an amount of Rs.55,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Tolichowki Branch, Hyderabad, issued to the petitioner/ landlord tolvards part payment of arrears of rents pertaining to his tenancy.of a shop situated at lyyangar Plaza Complex, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad alieging that the lst respondent failed to keep sufficient funds in his account to honour the said cheque and inspite of receipt of legal notice he neithcr repaid the amount nor gave suitable reply making him liable for the punishment under Section 138 of NI Act. The contention of the lst respondenl/ accused is that the subject cheque, along with other post-dated cheques, was issued by him towards security for the future rents, he did not rcceive legal notice and that during pendency of calendar case, with a view to settle the matter amicabiy outside the Court, he paid the entire arrears of ren[s to the landlord upon obtaining assurance Lhat he would withdraw the complaint.

¶30

The trial Court, upon consideration of oral evidence of^PW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.Pl to P7 and D1 to D26^{found the lst} respondent/ accused guilty for the offence under Section^{138 of NI Act,} convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra.^{Aggrievedby the said} findings, the lst respondent preferred Criminal^{Appeal No.29} of²⁰¹⁰ before the appellate Court wherein DWs.l and 2 were^examined. \ fti.t& I, 1'l 'lq' i^' :1".)

¶31

Page 3 of6

¶32

However, as per judgment dated 20.O9.2Ol1 in Criminal Appeal No.29 ol 2OlO, the learned Judge of the appellate Court set aside the findings of the trial Court holding that complaint filed against the 1"t respondent before the trial Court is not maintainable and acquitted the 1"t respondent.

¶33

Aggrieved by the said lindings of the appellare Courr, the petitioner/ landlord preferred the present criminal revision case mainly contending that the appellate Court without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, findings of the trial Court, entertaining the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2, who are the attester of Ex.D26 and the 1st respondent/ accused, fact that the petitioner has successfully established his case of dishonour of subject cheque and compliance _his of statutory provisions and requirements has erroneously set aside the well considered findings of the trial Court. On the other hand, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that the frndings of learned appellate court are well considered findings and there is no need for interference with the same.

¶34

The evidence on record clearly established the relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and arrears of rents to be paid by the l"t respondent to the petitioner

¶35

Page 4 of6

¶36

and also issuance of Ex.Pl cheque towards partial discharge of arrears of rents.

¶37

The recitals of Ex.D26 shows that 12 post-dated cheques were issued by the 1st respondent to the petiLioner each for Rs.21,000/i.e. Rs. 11,O0O/- towards present monthly rent and Rs. 1O,000/towards ariears of rents. However, the subject cheque is not the one mentioned rn Ex.D26, which fact proves that the same was issued by the l"t respondent to the petitioner, as stated in his complaint.

¶38

The main contention of the l"t respondent is that he did not receive the statutory notice and hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Ex.P4 is the postal receipts and Exs.p5 and p6 are the certificates of posting addressed to two addresses of the 1st respondent. It is also a fact to be given credence that the legal notice Ex.p3 was not returned by the postal authorities. The petitioner relied upon the principle of law enunciated under Section 27 of Generai Clauses Act and under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act that legal notice sent to the correct address of the accused itself is a deemed service. Further, the petitioner relied upon trx.P7, letter addressed to the postal authorities enquiring the fate of Ex.P.3 notice. However, there is no proof on record to prove that Ex.P7 was sent to the postal authorities. Under Section A2(b) of NI Act, the complaint should be fi1ed within one month of th,e .4 date on which the cause of action arises under clause [c) .?

Page 5 of6

of the^proviso to^{Section 138 of NI Act. Withouthavingknowledge} regarding the date^{on which the drawer of the cheque received statutory} notice, it cannot^{be said that whetherthe drawer of the chequehas} paid the amount within^{fifteen days of the receipt of the noticeor not'} The petitioner did^{not mentionthe date on which the 1st respondent} received statutory^{notice and that the l"t respondentfailed to pay the} amount covered^{under the subject cheque within the statutoryperiodof} fifteen days. Under^{these circumstances,taking cognizanceunder} Section 138 of NI^{Act against the lst respondentby the trial Court is} not sustainable, as^{held by the appellateCourt.}

¶43

g. The trial Court, without^{considering the above settled} proposition of law,^{found the 1st respondent guilty for the} .offence^under Section 138 of^{NI Act but the appellateCourt, on propei appreciation of} evidence available on^{recordand the settled propositionof 1aw, has} rightly set aside the^{findings of the trial Court. In that view of the} matter, this Court is of^{the considered view that there is no need or} necessity warranting this^{court to interfere with the well considered} findings of the appellate^{Court. Further, the groundsurged by the} petitioner through this criminal^{revisioncase do not have any force} inviting interference of^{this Court with the hndingsof the appellate} Court. Having regard^{to the above factual matrix, this Courtis inclined} to dismiss the^{present criminalrevision case as devoid of merits.}

¶44

Page 6 of6

¶45

In the result, this^{criminalrevision case is dismissed}

¶46

Miscellaneous applications,^{if any pending, shallalso stand dismissed.}

SD/. T.SRINIVAS

To,

DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

^REGISTRAR '., /+ i .t,'a i^.:. :^{, i,,i,} .. V ;i.:1:.,,* ,{ .' .l SECTION^OFFICER ii:T ,Effii,t.1, ri .^1..'.1r.:i'' .i.: .i^_: !l r j. .

¶51

//TRUE^COPY//

¶52

1 . The ll Additional^{Metropolitan SessionsJudge' Hyderabad} ;. i'# iffi;;tiion"r^L'as", ""^{ivttl Rooition't chief Metropolitan} a. Two Maoistrate,^{CCs to HYderabadthe Public Prosecutor'High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hvderabad [OUT] 4. 61,;'#i;il^{s'irinivasasharma'Advocate [oPUC]}

¶53

¶54