Allowed

Somi Reddy Sampath Reddy v. The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023CRLRC/26/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the reversal of an acquittal. It held that the trial court's reasoning setting aside conviction was probable and the appellate court failed to give cogent reasons for reversal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner acquitted in Crl.A.No.264 of 2012; Criminal Revision Case No.26 of 2018 allowed without costs.

Somi Reddy Sampath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana Rep by… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32s1 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 26 OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Sections^{397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., againstthe} Judgment dated 28-11-2O16 made Cd.A.No.264 of^{2O12 on the file of the Court} of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict at L.B.} Nagar, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order^{passed in} C.C.No.225^{of 2O11,} dated 07-05-2012 on the file of the Court of the^{Vll Additional SpecialMagistrate} at Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Somi Reddy Sampath Reddy, S/o Papi Reddy

¶10

... Petitioner/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by^its Public^{Prosecutor, High} Court^of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and the^{State of Andhra} Pradesh-

¶13

R. Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy

¶14

.RespondenUComplaint

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRC MP. NO: 48784OF²⁰¹⁷¹

¶16

Petition under Section 397 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court may be pleasedto} suspend the sentence^passed in Crl.A.No.264^{ot 2012, daled 28.11.2016 by the} learned XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict at L.B.} Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K.V. RAGHU VEER

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: THEPUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶19

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

] ON,BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDI'R

¶21

CRl ,II:NAL REVISION CASE No.26 OF 2018 JUDGlVlIIN'I:

¶22

I. 'l lrt l'r Il)ncr/it(rcllscd is aggrie/c(l b.,r tlt: , r-clcr oi' tlte Icrrr-r'rr'r.l .rl'^, clclitiorrrrl Districl & Scssionr; .Jrrc r:,t ;rt L.l).Nlgnr I1r,cl",'',,', ,,, : t..lnminaI Appeal No,-264 o] 2C) 1,? I t:rcrsir-rg the ortlor- ol a(: i ttal passcd it'r C.C.No.2.l5 tl- ..1( I1 Irr VII ,\rlrlili,,rurl S1 cci,l1 N,,Iagtsl.ratr: at llastlt;irrpu-,rll. lili,ci tirc f)r-cscLt^{(lrirrri rirl Rcr,isiotrCasC}

¶23

)..^'l'lrc 2"' r ::;ponclt:nt her-ciri. u,lro is tlrl r::rrL:1:ri rant rn tltc cilse lilo(l^, o nlllainl r-rncler Scction I3[ () 1 r(, Ne sotialrle InsLrume rrLsr \cL aJlcging thnt tbc pctiriortr:-/ ilc()usL.d Ilad issucd a^(r])o. rr [,tr ]?s.1.O0 lal<h to <lischar-gc p:Llt r I titt. hanc-l lourr ol lis.ri . 0 lilkhs.^'l'r'',o chequcs wcrc issLr:,1 ltl lis. I.OO l:rl<h :rrr11 ll:;^I .OO lal<hs.^'l'1rc chequc issr-r:d tbr I.ls. 1 .O() 1al<h rnar'l<crl as Lr: A 1, rvltt:r.t Jrr-cscnLed for clcaran,:,: "rlts rt:lLtrrrc--ci ur) pai(l iol Ll e: rcason of insufficient lurrd:i. !-i rrce rrt:cusocl farlccl to rrr:r goocl 1.1-rc payment aftcr t-,:t:citrt of uoLicc, <rorn1'r1arrrI u':r I I ied. l'lLc l,r:arnecl Magistra:e travirg cxitrnirtr:c1 1). \Vs. I ar cl rird also ntiuking lixs.Al to r(), .m:l Lhilt. thc

¶24

¶25

accused was not guilty of thc oflencc under Section 13g of ttrc Negotiable lnstrumenls Act alrd accorclir-rpl.v acquitte:d the accused.

¶26

Learned Magistrate found thatl i) though the amount of Rs.5.0O lakh was paid iri cash on 25.0S.2009 ir-r the presencc of one Sri P.Madhusudhan Reddy he was not examined; ii) though complainant ciaimed that Rs. 1 .00 takh u,as u.ithdrawn from SBH, Alkapuri and ren'raining :lrnount ol I?s.4.00 lakhs was collected from his friends, neither the bank statement is filed nor the relatives lrom whom thc money was coliected were examined; iii) Though Ex.A9 income ta_x return was filed, the said loan transaction was not recordcd iv) The factum of debt of transaction, receiving o[ cheques after 25.OS.2OO9 were all subsequent developments creating a new story by the complainant.

¶27

Since the said inconsistencies were found, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused.

¶28

Learned Sessions Judge, on appeal reversed the order of acquittal mainly on the ground that the cheque was issued

¶29

¶30

iln d \,lrc1 :l lirt' c1<':l-anc'c. thc same r,l as rl s trrrort:rl.^'l'l-rc l)ott('(^,.,.'i1li s.,l' rnd cortrpiaitrlrnt rr:ceived ltoslal :.r.<. ,rpt. Sincc []ro .)91-r,(:i(..1 .rf Ser:tlrtr-i I il8 of tl-re Neg,rtirrl) c Iltstrlrutr: ,ts \r:t i,,, t^. t'r tl :i. :,'1. thr: lr::rr-r't.cl Sessions ._ludgc ir ,t . I ilt;r r [ht, ofd('r l,rlr 1r r :t lras to lte r-cvrtrscd

¶31

t) In Ravi Sl a rma v. State (Government c,f NC,t of Delhi) and anothcrr, L ltt. [] r: r'L,le Srrl,,rentt Court held tltiit rr,lt lr :llrrlnrr,, rr ith an lryrlrcitl r.liLir st :rcqr,ritLal, the appcllate coLrrt h:L; trr c.nsicler*,hetlrt'r' rit,, irie i Crturt's r.icu, <:an [)e termed :ls ir ]r): sibl. rtrrr: Pzirtr.Lr):r''1r^{rr lrr} .. crvid<:rrc:e .)1t l-ecord has becn ti:t;rl, scci Thc rcasolr is tl rLt :rt rrrr:1er ol'acclurttal aclds up to tlte ltr:sr- rnlttron of ltlttoc('n(c i t l,tv rr r of Lltl accrrscd. l'hus. the al)pe li tc r:ourr.l htLs to bt' r.e lat^r. r' r s orl, in revcrsitrg the order ol th . L -iai r.orrrt rcr-rclcrrrrrg ar r 1L ritl I

¶32

l.i :r:l]r rl .\li qtstraLe aiter claborately discrrssi.rl llc c'l(l(,r.rc{l that^r,r:Ls y;larr..ri : I rc.corrl l:eld tl-rat the complainart, f:rilc<[ to l)ro.e lriS casc. EllLbr:trt (. r(lasoltlj are giyen as tO $,hl tlt<: c: rrnltlain:rnt,s case ('iLnnot l;c , o rsidc:rCcl ancl therc \ras r10 lelli;1r' r'rlirrt:r.ab1c

¶33

l.2Ll22) l',,1)r..uL, r r l:, t. 5:6

¶34

¶35

¶36

debt. IJorvever, Lhe learncd Sessions Judgc u,ithout dis<;r_rssins an. part of the reasoning given by the learncd N4agistrartc for rccordirrg acquittal, had reversed the convi<:tion orrl-r on Lhe basis of tl,rc ingredients ol Section 138 of the Ncgotialtlc Insrr.r.rmeltrs ,\ct be ing lulfilled that the chequc Ex.A1 r,rras issur:d, returncd ur-rpaid and r-rotice ra,as also served on the accused.

¶37

The reasoning given by the learned Magistratc is probablc and based on the admissions made by P.W. 1/complarnant and also thc documents frled along with the complaint. Unlcss thcrc is ar.r infirmity o. T, illegality in the findings as hcl<1 bv the Flon,blc Supreme Court, the appellate Courts whilc dcaling rr.ith an orclcr of acquittal sha1l not reverse such ordcrs unless cogcnt and convincing reasons are given regarding thc incorrccL findings of the trial Court. In the present case, the appellzite Court/ learned Sessions Judge has failed to discuss thc reasoning of the learned Magistrate and mechanically reversed the order ol acquittal, which is incorrect ald contrary to the law laid dorvn b5, thc l-{on,ble Supreme Court.

¶38

Since the reasoning given by tl'rc learr-rcd Magistratc is probable and based on the evidencc placed on record, this Court deems it appropriate to upSold the order of acquittal recorded bv

¶39

¶40

tlrc ir'.Lr :ir' I \ r,r ii .trat. rr.rr cc-rrrsr,'clLtcath. sct rrsjrit: tjr. ,r.ac,r- .r.thc. Ic:Lr-:tr ri S j .- udrlL, Lr-t cortr icling rhc p jtiii() t( t_/ilcCu:j(,(l ll\ I-L'('_r'str ! t tt,,,rr ll r-crrsoni.rlJr-iclqrncnt of acqLrit_ai I)\ t.tc rial^{( 'o} LrrL

¶41

Il Llt,^-,:Lr r. th(, (.rimir-r:rl Rcvrsiorr Crsr. ii .tll,)\.e(i . Bail 'onds.^{if r.,. slr:ll sri.rdclischarged.As al;r:rlLrr:tl}.trtre to. nrisccll:rnc )r.r \ ..(,litions. ;f anv. llending, sh: 11 ste t- cl r iose 11

¶42

To,

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

SD/.'I-. KRISHNA KUMAR D:I:'UTY REGISTRAR t JLi

¶45

SI:C'IlON OFFICER

¶46

'l . The Vll Acldit rrrral Special [\4agistrate at Hast inapu.a n, Ranga Reddy D istrict.

¶47

2 The XIV Adorl tnal District and Sessions Judge, R;rrrg a ReJdy District at L.B. Nag'l r, H; Je,rabad

¶48

3 Two CCs to hr^public prosecutor, High Court for the Statl i)f T?langana at Hyderabarl. lOl 1'j

¶49

4 9n" 99^{t,, SR K V RAGHU VEER} Advocate [OpLtC] Two CD Oopies

HIGH COUR

DATED:09 t0 )12023

JUDGMENT

CRLRC.No,.2) ot 2018

/ ,4,, ( 1 tl E. SrArF o
({-
. I,
2 [ ,ll][ ?[a
35o
i ,,,
' ;l- r ..q -,.111rf
..r::-

¶57

ALLOWING I HE CRL.R.C. WITHOUT C(^ISTS

¶58

¶59

Somi Reddy Sampath Reddy v. The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somi Reddy Sampath Reddy v. The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anumakonda Shashidar Vs the State of A.P.

Smt. Shobha Omprakash Yadav Vs the State of A.P.

Krishna Takre Vs the State of A.P.

Yelakanti Mallaiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Vanamala Sathyanarayana Vs the State of Telangana

Kuthadi Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana