Dismissed

S.Vijayasri v. D.Srinivasa Roa and 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024CRLA/920/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed an appeal against acquittal of two accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellate court upheld the Sessions Judge's finding that prosecuting individual signatories without impanelling the society violated Section 141 of the Act as read with Aneeta Hada.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge confirmed. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

S.Vijayasri Vs D.Srinivasa Roa and 2 Others — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32sl ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 920 OF 2013

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 378 of^{Cr,P.C., againstthe Judgment- dated} 12.08.2013 passed in Crl. Appeal No.^{186 of 2012on the file of the Court of the V} Additional District & Sessions Judge^{(Fast Track Court), Ranga ReddyDistrict} preferred against the Judgment dated 09.04.2012^passedin C.C.No.^{28 of 2011(Old} b.C.No. 944 of 2010) on the file of the Court^{of the Vlll Spl. Ivlagistrate,L B.Nagarat} Hasthinapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

S Vijayasri, Wo. S. Prabhakar^{Reddy, Age. 42 years. Occ} Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-386/1/85, Keshavanagar,^{Champapet,Hyderabad.}

¶10

...Appella nURes pondent No.1/Com^{pla ina nt}

¶11

AND

¶12

D. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subba Rao,^{Age: 45 years,Occ: Business,R/o. H.No.} 17 -1 -391 N 138, Saraswathinagar, Saidabad,^Hyderabad.

¶13

tvl. Ramesh, S/o. An.iaiah,^{Age: 34 years,Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 17 1-} 3Y fi ll48,Saraswathinagar, Saidabad,^Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondents/AppellanUAccused

¶15

The State of A.P., rep. by its P.P.,^{HighCourt of A-P,, Hyderabad}

¶16

...Res po nde n URes^{pon den} t

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Venkat^{Reddy Thipparthi}

¶18

Counsel for Respondent Nos.¹ & 2 : Sri^{K. Rama SubbaRao}

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Public^Prosecutor

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.920 0F 2013

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This Criminal Appeal is Iiled by the appellant/complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.0g.2O13, in Crl.A.No. 1g6 of 2012, on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, whereunder the judgment dated 09.04.2OI2 io C.C.No.28 of 2011, on the file of the VIII Special Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Hasthinapur, Ranga Reddy District (for short Trial Court), was set aside.

¶24

Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the record.

¶25

The appellant, who was the complainant in the Trial Court, is questioning the acquittal of the accused Nos. I and 2 for rhe offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act, 188 I ( for short, Act, 1gg1).

¶26

4 ' The complainant prosecuted accused Nos. 1 and 2 in ttreir personal capacity as members of the Society, on behalf of which, cheque in question was issued. The said cheque was signed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the account pertains to that of the Society.

¶27

¶28

The trial Court convicted accused Nos.l and 2 for the reason that they being signatories to the cheque in question and liable on behalf of the societ5r.

¶29

However, in the appeal, Iearned Sessions Judge found that prosecution of accused Nos.l and 2 is contrar5r to Section I4l of the Act, 188 1, which mandates inclusion of the Company/ Association of individuals/ Firm as a part5r to the criminal complaint. The cheque was admittedly issued on behalf the Society. Under Section 141 of the Act, 1881, the Society would be an accused and the signatories to the cheque would be made vicariously liable on behall of the Society. The wording under Section 141 of the Act, 188 l, specifically states that the persons, who are responsible on behalf of the Firm/Company/Association of individuals, had to be made parties and alt the persons, who are running the said Firm/Company/Association of individuals on daily basis would be responsible for the offence committed.

¶30

7 . In the absence of making the Societ5r as an accused, as per the judgment reported in Aneeta Hada a. M/s. God.father Traaels & Tours hrt.Ltdr the persons who were responsible for acts of the Society cannot be prosecuted in their individual capacity.

¶31

'^{ArR (20r2) sc2795}

¶32

¶33

This Court does not find any infirmity with the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment dated 12.08.2013, in Crl.A.No.186 of 2012, on the fiIe of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (past Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, is hereby confirmed. pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

Sd/. M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPU REGISTRAR

)

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The V Additional District^{& Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy} District.

¶41

z ihe Viir Spl^{Magistrate' L.B Nagar at Haj;thinalrur' Ranga Reddy District} . 5. r*i dcJto^{tne Fubtic prosecur6r,Highcourt for the state of Telangana at} Hyderabad.^(OUT)

¶42

4 O;; CC to Sri Venkat^{Reddv Thipparthi, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶43

5 One CC to Sri K^{Rama Sub6a Rao' Advocate [OPUCI} 6. Two CD CoPies

Njb/DL

S{,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.920 of 2013

I i H S 14 r4r
o
(i I
21 ll0t/ 202{ oi
-a'
D€ T C €O

¶52

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

¶53

\q\ro\rr^.

S.Vijayasri v. D.Srinivasa Roa and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vijayasri v. D.Srinivasa Roa and 2 Others

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

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Polisetty Arogyamery and 4 Others

Muppidiwar Pandari and Another Vs Sri Ahmed and 3 Others

Yedugani Somalingam Vs G.Raghava Reddy

P.Surya Narayana Raju Vs Bramhandabheri Suchitra

B.Madhu Kumar Vs Annapureddy Eswari and Anr.

Sandruka Mallappa , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.