Dismissed

Gangaram Seth M.S.Prakash Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Dec 2024CRLRC/1634/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, relying on Bani Singh, proceeded on merits despite petitioner's non-appearance. It confirmed the conviction under Section 138 NI Act but reduced the imprisonment sentence to time already served, directed deposit of Rs. 55,000, and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to time served; conviction confirmed; Rs. 55,000 directed for deposit within 6 months.

Gangaram Seth M.S.Prakash Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32es l

¶2

NorE:- The Accused was direc{ed to be rereased on bair by the order of the High court dated 07-08-2013 in crr.RCMp No. 2520 of 2013 in crr.RC No 1634 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1634 OF 2013

¶8

criminal Revision case fired under section 397 rtw 401 of crpc against the Judgment 01-08-2013 in crl.A.No.26 of 2013 on the fite of the court of the r Additional sessions Judge at Khammam preferred by the Judgment dated 31.01.2013 in c.c.No.291 ot 2010 on the file of the court of the Judiciat First Class Magistrate, Bhadrachalam.

¶9

Between:

¶10

9_fnqqqf^{Seth M.S.prakash} Rao^{S/o M.V.Subba} Rao, Age 52 years, Occ LISji,?^DSlptoyee.^{pers.onnetNo.SSe, R/o at.No 37 ric Fs6o b.r-"r} barapaKa, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶11

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCU SED

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabab.

¶14

2 Ch.Ramachander Rao S/o Ramakotaiah, Occ ll.C pSpD Employee, R/o Sarapaka, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam Oist.^-

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

counsel for the Petitioner: sri B. sudhakar Reddy (No Representation)

¶17

counsel for the Respondent No. i: Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E. V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMTNAL REVISION CASE^{No.1634 of 2O13}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present criminal revision case is^{hled under} Sections 39t7 rlw 4Ol of Cr.P.C^{aggrievedby the} Judgment ctated 01.08.2013^passed in Crl.A.No.26^of 2013 on the hle of the learned I^{AdditionalSessions} Judge at Khammam ([or short 'the appellate Court)ⁱⁿ confirming the Judgment dated 31.01.2013^{passed in} C.C.No.29 | of 20 10 on the file of the learned^Judicial Magistrate o[ First Class, Bhadrachalam^(for short^'the trial Court')

¶21

No replesentation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr.E.Ganesl-r learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing lor the respondent No.1 State.

¶22

There r,vas no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 03. 12.2024. Even today also, there is no representati,tn on behalf of the petitioner inspite of listini the matter under the caption, "for dismissal".

¶23

¶24

Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per tJre decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesnil", wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the ments.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that tJre complainant and the accused are working at ITC PSPD Sarapaka. The accused approached the complainant and requested him to advance an amount of Rs. 1,5O,OOO/- on 18.O4.2OO8 for his necessities and borrowed the said amount and agreeing to repay the same with interest @24o/o per annum and executed a promissory note under origina-l of Ex.Pl. lnspite of repeated demands, accused issued a cheque bearing No.947897 dated L9.IO.2OO9 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under Ex.P2. The said cheque

¶26

| ( l996).1 Suprcrnc ( ourt Clases 720

¶27

¶28

was deposited in the account of complainant^{i.e., State} Bank of Inclia, Sarapaka Branch for collection,^{but the} said cheque was returned with cheque^{return memo} dated 19.10.2009 under Ex.P3 stating that^"Funds Insufhciet", thereby, the respondent/complainnnt^got issued a legal notice under Ex.P4 and^{it was receivedby} the accused under Ex.P5/Postal acknowledgment^and Ex.P6/Certified copy o[ decree in O.S.No.5OO of 2010^on the hle of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. Though the accused received the said notice, neither paid the cheque amount nor gave any reply to the said notice. Therefore, the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. After completion of the investigation. the police lited charge sheet which was taken on file as C.C.No.291 ol 2O1O.

¶29

5 ,In^{suprportol its case,} the prosecution examined \ PW. 1 and got marked trxs.Pl to P6. On behalf of the

¶30

¶31

accused, the evidence of DW. 1 was marked ald no documents were marked on his behalf.

¶32

After closure of the complainant side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining him all the incriminating circumstances that are found in the evidence. The accused described the same as false.

¶33

After appreciating the oral and documentaqr evidence on record, the learned \dagi strate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.l. Act and was convicted under Section 255 (21 Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment lor a period of one (1) year and to pay a hne o[ Rs. 1O,000/- and in default of payment of fine shall further suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of

¶34

three (3) months.

¶35

¶36

an Aggrie'v'ed by which, the accused preferred appeal before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, at Khammam, (for short 'appellate Court') the learned appellate Court after considering the facts and IN circumstances and upon perusing the Judgment C.C.No.291 of 201O, dated 31.O1.2013 has dismissed the appeal conhrming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for responclent- S tate. Perused the record.

¶38

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilty o[ the revision petitioner/ accused and the learned counsel for the revlslon petitioner did not place anythinq before this Court, which woulcl discredit the evidenct-'. Therefore,

¶39

(

¶40

¶41

no interference was warrarited as far as conviction is concerned, but with rega-rd to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2Ol3 and a-lmost 11 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner while maintaining the frne imposed by the trial Court.

¶42

The Criminal Rcvision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is set off to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused. Further, the petitioner is further directed to deposit compensation of Rs.SS,OOO/- to the credit of the trial Court within a

¶43

¶44

period of six months from today. On such deposit, respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.50,OO0/- with immediate effect. An amount of Rs.5,000/- shall remain with the State. If the^petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple irnprisonment for a period of one month.

¶45

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶46

stand closed.

¶47

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS D PUry REGISTRAR

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

SECTION^OFFICER

¶50

To, 1 The I Additional^{Sessions Judge at Khammam} , 2 ffre Luaiciat First^{Class Maqistrate, Bhadrachatam} 3 Two CCs to the^{Public P,"1;;6;' Higt' -Co"t for thr: State of Telangana at} l{vderabad. IoUT]

¶51