Dismissed

M/S. Pooja Corporation v. M/S. Parameshwari Dall Mill and 2 Others

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023CRLRC/881/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision under Section 397 CrPC was filed by a complainant challenging the acquittal of accused persons in a cheque bouncing case. The High Court reviewed the first appellate court's finding that the debt had been discharged before the statutory notice was issued.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court.

M/S. Pooja Corporation Vs M/S. Parameshwari Dall Mill and… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3208 ]

¶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 SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 881 OF 2OO9

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment daled 12.11.2008 made in Crl.A.No.266 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the llAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

It//s. Pooja Corporation, Rep. by its Prop. Vijay Vyas, S/o. Lalchand Vyas, Occ: Business, 15-2-21 4, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. Parameshwari Dall Mill, H.No. 18-4-421314, Shamsheergunj Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner A2

¶13

N. Bhola Bhai Desai, Sio. N. Narayana Swamy Nadar Partnerof M/s. Parameshwari Dall Mill H.No. 18-4-4213/4, Shamsheergunj Hyderabad

¶14

The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., HYderabad

¶15

..Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. SHESHU KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:SRl R. DILIP KUMAR JAISWAL

¶18

Gounsel for the Respondent No.3: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUD]{A

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 881 of 2OO9

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case is hled against the Judgment dated 12.1 1.2O08 in Crl.A.No.266 of 2008 passed by the learned ll - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶24

M/s.Pooja Corporation represented b1, its Proprietor Vijay Vyas gave complaint against M/ s.Parameshwari Dall Mill/A. 1, one N.Bhola Bhai Desai/A.2 and R.Mallikarjun/A.3 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as ('N.l ActJ). The petitioner/complainant stated that accused A. 1 to A.3 purchased Dall from M/s.Santoshi Traders Udgir, Maharashtra and issued two Cheques vide Cheque trearing No.466560 dated 06.O3.2OO3 and another bearing No.466561 daLed 07.O3.2O03, each for an amount of Rs.45,000/- aed the said Cheques'a,ere signed by accused A.2 on behalf of ar:cused A. 1 and all the Cheques were of Tamilnadu Merchantile Bank Ltd., Siddiamber bazaar, Hyderabad. M/s.Santoshi T:ading Company in turn discounted the said cheques rvit.r the complainant on 05.O3.2O03. The complainant is the holCer of the said cheques in due course and when the complerinant

¶25

¶26

presented the said cheques, out of^{two cheques onc cheque} bearing No.46656i dated^{O7.O3.20O3 for anamountof} Rs.45,OO0/- was honoured^{by the Bank and the other cheque} bearing No.466560 dated^{06.03.2OO3for anamountof} Rs.45,O0O/- was dis-honoured^{with an endorsement"Funds} insufhcient" vide return^{memo dated 16.05.2003. The accused} A.3 is the sleeping partner of^{A.2 firrrl and he assuredthat they} will ciear off and pay the cheque^{amounts. Later, complainant} issued legal notice to the accused^{on 24.O5.2OO3and itwas} duly served on the accused and^{they gave reply noticeon} 10.06.2003 with false averments and^{they failed tomake} payment, as such they gave complaint.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the^{complainant would submit} that the case of the accused A.2 is that^{he has repaid the} payment which is subject matter of the dis-honoured^cheque under Ex.Pl and he had also mentioned^{the samein reply} notice, but the complainant failed to^{give any rejoinder cannot} be accepted and the^plea taken^by him^{is only to escapefrom} the liability. The learned Counsel for^{the complainantfurther} stated that thd alleged^payment in^{reply is regardingtrx.Pl 1.} trven, P.W. 1 admitted in his cross-examination^{that payment is} only in relation to cheque bearing^{No.466551 which was issued}

¶28

I I

¶29

to one Sanjay I{umar and his brothers \r,as not concerned tvith the subject matter chequcs. He arso submits that Ex. p 13 rvas signed by thc accused in the presence of witnesses and the letter uras zrlso given by accused A.2. It clearly establishes that Ex.P13 is the fabricated one and taken for defence. p_W. 1 and P.W.2 independent witness also speaks about trx.pl3. Ex.p9 is the undertaking given by accused A.2.

¶30

The trial Court examined the complainant as p.\V. 1 and another witness as p.W.2 and marked Exs.pl to p14. .lhere is no evidence on behalf of the accused.

¶31

The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record found accused A.1 & A.2 guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.l Act and sentenced to undergo Simple lmprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,OOOrr-, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for one month and both sentences shall run concurrently with sentence of imprisonment in C.C.No.694 of 2OO3. Accused A.3 was found not guilty for the said offence and is acquitted. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, accused preferred an appeal. The first apltellate Court after lengthy discussion acquitted accused A. 1 gr A.2.

¶32

¶33

Aggrieved b-r, the said Judgmcnt^{complainantprcferrcdthe} prcsent Criminal Revision Case.

¶34

The revision petitioner^{contended that the first appellatc} Court without any additional^{documentary evidence came to the} conclusion that these^{subjectcheques were repaid tothe} petitioner. The hrst appellate Court^{failed to appreciateEx.P13} and it was misguided^{regarding the issuance of rejoinder to the} reply notice. The documents^{filed under Ex.P9& P13 were liled} by the petitioner but not by the^{respondents. The petitioner} along with the present complaint^{alsohled anothercomplaintin} C.C.No.694 of 2OO3 and both the^{cases triedsimultaneously,} but when the appeal^{was preferred the matterswere made over} to two different Courts, but the^{said plea was neverraised'} Therefore, requested this Court^{to call for Crl.A.No.266of 2008} in C.C.No.695 of 20O3 and set aside^{the Judgment of the first} appellate Court.

¶35

7 . Though the revision^{petitionerpreferredthe Criminal} Revision Case, he never turned up^{before this Court. The} learned Counsel for the^{respondentsis presentand stated that} already notice was issued^{to the petitioner,but it was returned} with an endorsempnt "No such^person is available".^Therefore,

¶36

)

¶37

hcard thc arguurcnts o[ thc rcspondents Counscl anrl postcd " lor orders".

¶38

¶39

The hrst appcllatc Court observed that P.W.1 in his Cross-examination admittcd that in pursuance of the original of Ex.P6 notice got issued by him, A- 1 and A.2 sent reply no[ice which was marked as Ex.P11, in which it was stated that they paid Rs.2O,OOO/- on 17.O5.2OO3 and also made payment of Rs.24,950/- b_y rvay o[ pay order No.68115 dated 19.C5.2OO3 and both the documents u,ere made in respect of Ex.Pl cheque. It was also observed that Ex.P9 undertaking was executed on 03.01.2003, but signed by accused 4.2 on 28.01.2OOI}. When P.W.2 one of the attesting witnesses was examined, he has not stated that accused A.2 executed Ex.P9 in his presence, he simply stated that Ex.P9 and P13 bears his signature as witness No.2. It was also observed that accused A. I & A2 discha:'ged the debt due under ExPl even prior to Ex.P6 statutory noticr: issued under Section 138(b) of N.l Act, dated 24.05.2003 and thus there is no cause of action and complaint under SectiorL 138 of N.I Act is not maintainable and accordingly acquitted zrccused A.1 & A.2 for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act. The scope of criminal revision is limited. The first appellate Court rightly allowed the Crimina[ appeal on appreciating the entire evidence

¶40

I t I I

¶41

¶42

on rccord. Therefore,^{this Court finds no infirrrrity inthe} Judgment of the lirst appellate^{Court and itneeds no} interfercnce.

¶43

g . In the result, the Criminal^{Revision Case is devoid of} merits and is dismissed confirming^{the Judgment of the first} appellate Court in Crl.A.No.266^{of 2008 dated 12.1 l -2OOa.}

¶44

Miscellaneous petitions^{pending, ifany, shall stand}

¶45

closed.

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6D

¶48

SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To, 1 The ll Additional^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, Hyderabad} District. 2 d; aa to SRl.^{B. sHESHU KUtvlARAdvocate1ofuql} 3 i;; Ca; t"-th"^{Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT] 4. iii,"-bC t" s'nt. nl otltp^{KUMAR JAlswAL Advocate[oPUC]} 5. Two CD CoPies CHR

, t

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910612023

ORDER

-': .,- ,.:,!
" -.4.' -. :,'r' -.- ' t .: ,- L !.: -- ' 4.-
.i - .:J' ,r:. .1.
i', -'i
'. )
..: tl
'\g ttt $
r() .: .)'
-.,,')
'\\i _ it!:

¶58

CRLRC.No.881 of 2009

¶59

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C. WITHOUT COSTS

M/S. Pooja Corporation v. M/S. Parameshwari Dall Mill and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Pooja Corporation v. M/S. Parameshwari Dall Mill and 2 Others

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

A. Srikanth Vs J. Bal Reddy

Smt Kodali Vineela Vs Smt. Kodali Shobharani

T.S. Mahalaxmi Vs M. Ravindranath

Dandugula Rajaiah, Vs Sri P. Ramchandram, (Major)

Neeradi Ratna and 2 Ors. Vs Amin Virani and Anr.

Ameena Bai Vs Abdul Satha (died) by LRs