Partly allowed

Smt. P. Vijaya v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC15 Mar 2023CRLRC/74/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision, the High Court allowed the petition partly. The Court held no infirmity in the sentence modification from one year to one month. However, considering the Civil Court granted relief to the deceased complainant and the petitioner's status as a government servant, it set aside the remaining imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the imprisonment of one month; carry forward the sentence modification to one month and fine of Rs. 10,000.

Smt. P. Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana and another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32sl I

¶2

Bail Slio: The Accused were directed to be released on bail vide Court order dated 191212020 lA No. 2 ol 202O

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL REV!SION CASE NO: 74 OF 2020

¶8

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment made in CrlA No. 28812014 dated 10-10-2019 on the file of the Court of the lllrd Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge: Hyderabad prefened against the Order made in C.C.No. 4O4 oI 2O1O. Dated^'18/3/2014 on the file of the Court of the XVlth Additional Judge cum XXth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. P. Vijaya, W/o Lakshminaravana, Aged 47 years, Occ. Teacher, Rl/o Trainee Graduate Teacher in Maths, A.P. (Presently Telangana) Tribal Welfare Residential School. (Gids), Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnazar District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

ANO

¶13

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

¶14

Sri G. Venugopal Reddy, S/o Singa Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o Plot No.97, Ayyappa Nagar Colony, Old Alwal, SecunderaM

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P N ARUN KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent 1r PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

( rl l.C. No.74 of 2020

¶20

¶21

THE HO^.IOURABLE SNf :USTTCE K.SURI:NIDER

¶22

CRIMI REVISION CASE N .74 0F 2l)211

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Crim n,al Revision Case is filed urrder Jr,cti,:ns 397 and 401 of C:xle of Criminal Procedure, 197.1 (fcrr short "Cr.P.C") by th ,r petitioner to set aside the ordt:r p:rssed in Crl.A.No.2BB of 2014 dated 10.10.2019 by the III Arlditional Metropolitan S:ssions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment datec 18.03.2014 passed in C.C.No.404 of .1010 on the file of X\ I Additional Judge-Cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Ma listrate at Hyderabad.

¶25

Heard lea-ned counsel for the petitioner a-rd learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondenl - State.^perused the record.

¶26

The petiti ,rner was convicted by the trizrl Court in C.C.No.404 of 2 )10 by the learned XVI Additional Jt.dge-CumXX Additional Cl e'f Metropolitan Magistrate at Hycle,rabad, for the offence unde r Section 138 of N.I. Act and :;enten,::ed him to

¶27

Crl.R.C. No.74 of 2O20

¶28

¶29

undergo simple imprisonrnent for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶30

On appeal, in Crl.A.No.288 of 2014, the learned Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal by modiffing the sentence to one month and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 2d respondent has also filed a civil suit and during the proceedings before the Civil Court, it was brought to the notice of the Civil Court that the 2nd respondent is no more. No steps were taken by the legal heirs of 2nd respondent to prosecute the civil suit filed by the 2nd respondent.

¶32

I do not find any infirmity with the order of the learned Session Judge in modiffing the sentence of one year to one month. However, keeping in view that the Civil Court has already granted relief to the 2nd respondent and for the reason

¶33

Cr l.R.(:. No.74 of2O2O

¶34

¶35

of the petition :r being a Government servant, thi:; (:ourt deems

¶36

appropriate to ,;elt aside the imprisonment of oo€ rrtri)ot,t.

¶37

7 Accordinr Iy,, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

¶38

As a ser ur:l thereto, miscellaneous applic;rtion:;, if any,

¶39

pending, shall : tand closed.

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

SD/. T.SRINIVAS DE P Jl-T^REGISTRAR '^.L)

¶42

St:C]lON^OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

1'ThelllrdAdditioralMetropolitanSessionsJudge,HyderallaJ,

¶45

The XX^{Additior,rl Chief MetropolitanMagistrate' Hvderat'atl'}

¶46

3- Two^{CCs to the :)ttblicProsecutor'High Court for tl'e Stale lf l elanganaat} HYderabad [OU']

¶47

4- One CC to^{SRI P N ARUN KUMARAdvocate [OPJCI}

¶48

Two CD^CoPies

EDS Esh

HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 5103'2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.74 ot 2020

--'- l:- -r_ i
, ,, " ''''. ij-.,,..
.:: .<br>l: i
'fi
[]$ ?UB

¶56

PARTLY ALLCIWING THE CRIMINAL RE.YISIION CASE

¶57

B
R'1rlu":

Smt. P. Vijaya v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P. Vijaya v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Karri Laxman Rao and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Gundada Murali Krishna and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Ram Sudheer Reddy Palnati Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Farooq Vs The State of Telangana

Nageswar Rao.K Vs State of Telangana and another

Tirupathi Rao Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others