Dismissed

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

Telangana HC21 Oct 2024CRLRC/1923/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision against convictions for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. While upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentence to set off imprisonment already suffered, conditional on the deposit of the cheque amount with interest within six months.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; conviction upheld. Sentence modified to set off imprisonment already suffered upon deposit of amount with interest.

Mrs. B. Vasanthi, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., Rep… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

<br>

¶2

NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 25.11.2009 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2829 of 2009 in Crl.R.C No.1 923 of 2009.

¶3

[^32ee ]

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY.FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1923 OF 2009

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.PC against the Judgment dated 20.10.2009 passed in Crt.Appeat.No. 395 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Triat of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum Vl Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, Preferred against the Judgment daled 22.11 .2008, passed in C.C. No. 1406 of 2003 on the file of the court of the Xl Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mrs B. Vasanthi, W/O. B.B. Murthy, Occ : Proprietrix ltI/S. Sravan Exports AT^g- 3-84 l7 / 3, lll Floor, Kakatiya Nagar, Hvderabad.

¶12

...Petitioner

¶13

AND

¶14

I The State Of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Airlink lndia Ltd., Office at Victoria Caste, SI, 2nd Floor, H. No. 1-8450 /'l /A-159 and 160, Sardar Patel Road, NearAirport Flyover, Secunderabad-3 Rep. by its Branch Officer, G. Brahmananda Reddy.

¶15

...Respondent No. 2/Defacto Gomplainant

¶16

J Mis. Sarvam Exports Rep by its Proprietor Mrs. B. Vasanthi, H. No. 9-384n13,lll Floor, Kakatiya Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

...Proposed lmplead Revision Petitioner No. 2/Accused No. 2

¶18

R3 is amended as per Court Order dated 06.09.2024 in I.A. No. 1 o12024

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri. p Vamsheedhar Reddy

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri N Raghavan (Not present)

¶21

counsel for the Respondent No. 1: sri E. Ganesh Assistant public prosecutor

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

a-\

¶24

HOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶25

CRIMINAL RwISION CASE No.1923 OF 2OO9

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The 2'a respondent-complainant (who is a Freight Clearing Serrrices Company) filed a complaint before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad^(for short, "the trial Court') alleging that petitioner No.l (who is the Proprietor of petitioner No.2-M/s.Sarvam Exports) approached the complainant for freight clearing and forwarding of export^{goods to} their customers at London, United Kingdom. Respondent No.2/complainant rendered the freight forwarding services to^the petitioners. Petitioners fell due art amount of Rs.12,08,483/- and in discharge of the salne issued four cheques^bearing Nos.472623, 472624, 472620 and 472613 each for^Rs.8,483/-, Rs.4,00,OOO/-, Rs.4,O0,OOO/- and 4,OO,OOO/- a-ll drawn on^State Bank of India of Hyderabad, however, the cheques^were dishonoured on presenting for encashment by respondent^No.2 on 14.05.2003 for the reason "Insufficient funds". In^{spite of the} complainant issuing a statutory legal notice^(Ex.P6) by^Post (Ex.P7-postal receipt, and Exs.PS to P10 postal acknowledgments), the petitioners failed to repay the amount^due under the dishonoured cheques.^{Alleging that the petitioners}

¶28

¶29

failed to discharge the legally enforceable debt under the aforementioned cheques, the complainant frled a case i.e., Calendar Case No.14O5 of 2OO3 before the trial Court accusing that the petitioners are liable for punishment for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I.Act.").

¶30

The trial Court, after considering the evidence of PW-l, and the documents Exs.P-1 to P-25 on behalf of the complainant, and the erridence of DW-1 and the documents Exs.D-l to D 7 on behalf of the petitioners, found petitioner No.l guilty of the offence and uide Judgment dated 22.11.2008 in C.C.No. 1405 of 2003 sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay Rs. 1,000/- towards fine amount. In default of payment of fine, petitioner No.1 shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶31

Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioners filed al Appeal i.e., Criminal Appeal No.39S of 2008 before the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad (for short, "the appellate Court"). The appellate Court, after re-appreciating the

,ad!r"i

a-)

material on record, passed the Judgment dated 2O.LO.2OO9 upholding the conviction passed by the trial Court; however, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment imposed by the trial^Court was reduced to Six months. Challenging the same,^the petitioners/accused filed this Criminal Revision Case.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners,^and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for^respondent No.1-State. Despite servtce of notice, none appeared for the unofficial respondent. Perused the record

¶37

l,earned counsel for the rerrision petitioners contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to^appreciate the evidence available on record in proper^{perspective and} concurrenfly found the petitioners guilty of the^{alleged offence.} Therefore, seeks to set aside the impugned^judgment.

¶38

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that^both the Courts upon careful scrutiny of the^{evidenceavailableon} record rightly passed theii respective^judgments and^the interference of this Court is unwarranted.^{Therefore, seeksto} dismiss the Revision.

¶39

¶40

7 ' A perusal of the record shows that this court uid e order dated 25.1 L.2OO9 suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 by the appellate Court, pending Revision, on executing a bond of Rs.S,0OO/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in the case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that petitioner No. 1 is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 13g of N.I.Act. ald convicted him accordingly, and the said finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.p.C.

¶42

With regard to sentence of imprisonment, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in favour of petitioner No.1 by setting off the sentence imposed by the triat Court confining the same to the period of punishment already suffered by him, considering the mental agony and physical incarceration by roatrfng around the courts, which petitioner No. 1 wor.rrd have suffered during the course of litigation before the trial court and

¶43

¶44

the appellate Court, subject to the^{petitioners depositing an} amount of Rs. 12,08,483/- within^{a period of six months from ttre} date of receipt of a copy of this order^{to the creditof C.C.No.1405} of 2OO3 before the trial Court^{with simple interestat 60/o pet} a-nnum from the date of^{judgment of trial Corirt until the date of} the order passed by this Court.^{Upon such deposit, the 2"d} respondent/Complainant is^{permittedto withdrawthe sameto} the satisfaction of the learned triat^{Court. Indefault,the} petitioner/ accused shall suffer the imprisonment^{as modifiedby} the appellate Court uide impugned^{judgment dated22.1 1.2008.}

¶45

Except the above said modification,^{this criminal} revision case, in all other aspects^{stands dismissed.}

¶46

Accordingly, the Criminal^{Revision Case is dismissed'}

¶47

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if^{any, shall stand}

¶48

closed

¶49

Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

T/TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To 1 . The Special Judge for Trial of Offences under^S and STs (POA) Act cum Vl Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.^{(With Records)}

¶54

The Xl Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

¶55

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the^{State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶56

One CC to Sri. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy,^Advocate [oPUc]

¶57

One CC to Sri N. Raghavan, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies

¶59

D Upr M.

¶60

¶61

HIGH COURT DATED:2111012024

¶62

ORDER

¶63

CRLRC.No.1923 of 2009

¶64

a=:--
,J T.1',j- 'c j!
?a
/,i/i,/' .$'
.\ I
:,:.fi) q\s
l.- <br>

¶65

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶66

("
G,
d-

¶67

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Mr.Malluvalasa John Vs Smt. Mekala Rudhraksha Veni

Ghattupalli @ Golla Suresh, Vs The State of Telangana

Rathod Lalu Singh , Lalu Vs the State of a.P., Throug the Sho., P.S.

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

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

Syed Ashfaq Vs The State of Telangana