Dismissed

N.Suresh, Secunderabad., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC22 Oct 2024CRLRC/1585/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court disposed of an appeal against conviction for cheque dishonour. The appellant challenged an appellate order imposing costs and threatening imprisonment in default. The revision was dismissed upholding the lower courts.一审判决：上诉人犯有票据法第138条之罪。上诉法院命令支付费用，否则监禁24小时。上诉人提出异议。修订被驳回。

What the court decided

AI extract

N.Suresh, Secunderabad., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^H|GH "o'*IISIrtJl=oBlTE

¶3

TI ItrSDAY,^{THE TWENTY SECONDDAYOF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

cRl^{MINAL REVISIO N CASENO : 1585OF 2014}

¶7

th" o;;;";;Ll'ta CriminalRevisionCasefiledunderSection^3^97and401ofCr.PCagainst^{o?.zoi+madein crl.A.No.626 0f 2013 0n the file of the} U"r;';i1""3;J"ili^{L-uag"ror. Economic offencecumVlll AdditionalMetropolitan} s;;;i"; JuagJ, at^HYderabad'

¶8

Between:

¶9

N-Suresh. S/o^{Narsimha Rao' Occ: Business'R/o} H.No.5-73, Balaji^Nagar i.l"rt!#ir^{P"s, secunderabad'}

¶10

...Petitioner/APPellant

¶11

AND 1. State of Telangana'^{rept By SHO PS'S RNagarThrouoh Public Prosecutor'} High Court^{at Hyoera[5i'7tt'b St'1b oi ieli"nganaand"Andhra Pradesh'}

¶12

M/s. Svarnam^{Chit Fin (P) Ltd ' RegdOffice at 301-A' Nagasai Nivas'} Srinivas Cotony lcasij''sln^{rttagar''HyOerabad' Reo Bv its Authorised} jJY"l*:fi :l},it,lfi ii,lp"?,,about33

¶13

ipJ'ilt*"Aiil*{#Ur**"*"5J

¶14

.Respondents/ResPondents

¶15

r.A. NO :1OF 20'l CRL RCMP.^{NO:2597 0F 2014}

¶16

PetitionunderSection4S2olCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stateo'in"'ii,l'#iJrrit^{filed in supporto!thgpetition, the Hish court maybe} ;i;;;i^{i"';iririitfffft"|. proceedinssin crl-Appeal.No'626 of 2013 on the file of} ePvur€rr QnaaialltrrlaoforEconomicoffenc-ecumVlllAdditionalMetropolitanSession'u\rve^rvr --'ing disposal of the above criminal Appeal' Judge, at HYderabad^Penot

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: Sri S Chalapathi Rao}

¶18

CounselfortheRespondentNo'1:SriEGanesh'Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶19

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'2:} ---

¶20

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶21

¶22

THE HOI\IOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENIIGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION cASE No.158 5 0F 2014

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This.^{( jr} rrLinal Revision Case is filed :rggriev ed by the judgment lzrtr:rl 03.O7.2013 in Criminal Appe;rl Xo.6t6 of 2073 on the file ol- th: learned Special Judge for Economic Offences _ cum- VIIL\rlditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad (for short, 'tlre rrtpellate Court,,).

¶25

2' HearcL furr. S. chalapathi Rao, rearned cor_rns rl for the petitioner a,,l ![r-. E. Ganesh, learnecl Assistant pub Ii<: . )rosecutor appearing lrr rr:;condent State.

¶26

The bri,',f letcts of the case are that the :rr:cl sed issued a cheque to tl e compiainant for an amount cf Rs..I.50,000/_, which was cli,.htnoured, for which the complainant filed a complaint zt14a irrs t the accused for the offence u.der Se:tion 13g of Negotiabl': Ir r;r.rument Act before the XV SF,ecizrl I.agistrate Court, Hyde:r.abr, 11 (for short ,,the trial Court,,).

¶27

The triirl :r:,rrrt vide judgment dated 05.07.2()13 in OC No.76 of 2071 convic::ec tire accused for the offence uncler Sec tion 13g of NI Act for dis rr,nor 6f cheque aileged to have been is.suecl by

¶28

¶29

him for Rs.2,5O,O00/- to discharge the liability owed^{towards the} complainant. Challenging^{the same, crimina1 appealwas filed.}

¶30

\1\

¶31

¶32

In the appellate Court, when the case was^{posted for} arguments of the appellant^{and respondents, the caseunderwent} several adjournments from^{19.11.2013to2l-O3.2014.On} 21.03.2014 also the appellant^{was not ready for arguments, as} such in order to give one^{more chance to the appellant to advance} his case, the case was adjourned^{to O7.04.2014on payment of} cost of Rs.1,000/-^{payable to the respondent.}

¶33

On 07.O4.2O14, both the^{parties appearedbeforethe} appellate Court and the^{counselfor appellant reportedthat the} appellant is not ready to^{pay the cost and also not ready to} advance the arguments.

¶34

In the light of the submission^{madeby learned counsel for} the appellant,'the appellate^{Court issued a show cause noticeto} the appellant on ll.O4.2Ol4 uide Dis.No'492/ Spl.J/Eoc/Hydl2Ol4 calling^{upon him toshow cause why} default sentence of imprisonment^{for refusingto pay costs as} ordered by the Court on 21.O3.2O14^{shall not be imposed against} him. In response to the show^{cause notice, on 24'04'2014'} the appellant/ accused submitted^{a writtenreplypleadinC thet}

¶35

¶36

¶37

his counse^j \.i1i on the legs before the other Court rrt rrguing the case daily birs :; in terms of the direction of the col.rrt. Under the said circu rn,:itiL^-'t ccs, his junior counsel requel;ted ttir. Court on 21.O3.201 t lbl adjournment.

¶38

After h,raring both sides and taking the ccr-rsrrler: tion of the facts, the acpe late Court passed the following rrnpugne d order on 03.o7.201,r:

¶39

"In the r<,stt^'t, the appellant is clirected_ to pcttl tl1,? r,c st of Rs. 1,O01,, ,:), tomor-rou 04.07.2O14 OS.O0 p.m., it. deJcL tlt of non-paultent tf cost, he shall undergo simple inpr,sort rtent for^{24 ,htntr..} . The appellant and the counsel are dt-ectt.d to aduance tite ergum.ents in appeal on the next d.ate o1 l.Lrt,.ing i.e., 04.C'7 2t) 14"

¶40

Aggrie,.,eri tv the same, the present revision ts lrler:l

¶41

Learnr:c[ c,:,linsel for the petitioner contendec] ttrat he Court below erred ir imposing the costs of Rs. 1 ,OO,.) /_ u,ithout appreciatingl h: fact that the petitioner/appr6ll6 p 1 is petty employee anrl .h et the Court below awarded the se ntoi_r<;t u.ithout following the f,r,-,r:,:dure of law. The Court belov,, or,Lghl to have seen that in th.: e.,z:nt of non_payment of costs in the appeal shall only be recor/erec by invoking Revenue Recovery Art €ncl that awarding sent€ n,r I in default is nothing but unl-easona ble and

¶42

¶43

violative^{of due procedure as contemplatedunder Cr'P'C' The} Court^{below grossly erred in not considering the reply submitted} by^{petitioner/appellant to theshow cause notice dated} ll.O4.2Ol4^{and imposed the punishment in default for payment} ofcostsofRs.l,OOO/-andthattheCourtbelowoughtnottohave imposed^{the punishment of simpleimprisonment of 24 hours in} default^{of paymentof Rs'1, OOO / - ' Therefore'seeksto set aside} the^{judgment imPugned'}

¶44

10'LearnedAssistantPublicProsecutorsubmittedthatthe trialCourtaswellastheappellateCourtaftercarefulscrutinyof the evidence^{availableon record in proper perspectiverightly} passed^{their respecti'zejudgrnentsand the interference of this} Court^{is unwarrartted Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision'}

¶45

1 1 . Upon^{careful scrutiny of the oral and documentarSr} evidence,.^{the appellateCourtobservedthat the claim of the} appellant^{that his counselwas engaged in other Court and his} junior sought^{adjournmentfor argumentsis baseless and no} suchrepresentationwasmadeoranysuchapplicationwas moved^{before the Courtgiving reasonsfor seekingadjournment;} as such,^{said allegations were after thoughtsand same is} discarded^{from consideration.Therefore, the app-e_llateCourt}

ctt

basing on preponderar.lce of probabilitier;, i npr:sed costs of Rs.1,001,' prvable to the respondent by Ot.OZ.,2O 4 05.00 p.m. against tlre iutpellarlt/ accused, in default of non pa iment of cost, he shall u nriergo simple imprisonment for 24 ho:rs.

¶50

t2 Irr ther f ,resent case on hand, the appr:1lale C ourt imposed cost agiri lst the appellant/ accused for the irllel,,ed violation, which 1ir d rrg, ln my considered view, dor:s not call for interferenr:e. rn exercise of revisional jurisdiction u nder Section 397 Cr.L.(.

¶51

Thcr,. ;tr: no grounds much less valid qround ; to rnterfere with the ri.,el <:onsidered judgments of the both tl,re rlourts beiow and acco-cinEIy, this Revision is liable to be dism sse,_l.

¶52

14 Acr:rr Cir L;11.v, the Criminal Revision Case is clism ssecl

¶53

Mis:c 11:r;teous Petitions, pending if any, r;hall st; Lnd closed.

¶54

Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOII.IT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To,

¶56

The specia .lr-clge for Economic offence cum vlll Arlditirrnal Metropolitan Session .ludge , at Hyderabad (with Records, if any)

¶57

Two CCs lc tl r: Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Statr: of^-elangana at Hyderabad lOLl-ll

¶58

One CC t: Sri 13 Chalapathi Rao, Advocate tOpUCl

¶59

Two CD Oopir:r;

¶60

ADK/psl p

HIGH COURI'

DATED:2211r)12024

ORDER

CRLRC.No 1585 ot 2014

¶65

,r .S14
G
a)
(J 01 ;1r1 26
\e,
\ { +
c I,J
ISu

¶66

DISMISSING'THE CRLRC

¶67

4.oda5
w,
{,"\r5

N.Suresh, Secunderabad., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

N.Suresh, Secunderabad., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. B.Vasanthi Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Mrs. B. Vasanthi, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Mrs. B.Vasanthi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Manda Raju, Medak Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Thumpari Usha Rani, Vs Kuchana Thirupathi

Kolla Madhava Reddy Vs the State of Telangana and Another