Disposed

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

Telangana HC21 Oct 2024CRLRC/1971/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Cheque Dishonour case (Section 138 NI Act) filed under CrPC Section 397, the High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner as both courts correctly appreciated the evidence regarding dishonoured cheques. However, the Court set off the remaining sentence against the period already suffered and stayed execution upon payment of the due amount with interest within six months.

What did the court decide?

Further sentence stayed upon payment of Net Due amount Rs. 12,08,483/- with 6% interest within six months to trial court.

Mrs. B.Vasanthi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

Bail Slip: The accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of High Court dated 25.11.2009 in Crl.R.C.M.P .275O ot 2009 in Crl.R.C.1971 of 2009.

¶2

[^32ss J

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

IMONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1971 OF 2009

¶8

a"f

¶9

Criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 & 4O1 of CrPC against the Judgment dated 20. 10.2009 passed in Crl.A No.393 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act,^- cum - Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad^preferred against the Judgment dated 22.11.2008^passed in CC.No. 1406 of 2003 on the file of the court of the Xl Additional Chief l/etropolitan Magistrate, Secuncerabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mrs. B.Vasanthi, Wo B.B.Murthy, Proprietrix, M/s Sravan Exports at 9-3B4l7 13,' 3rd Floor, Kakatiya Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

M/s. Sarvam Expo(s, rep. by its Proprietor, Mrs. B. Vasanthi, H.No.9-3841713, lll Floor, Kakatiya Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

(P2 is amended as per court order dated 06.09.2024 in l.A.No.1 of 2024)

¶14

...PETITIONER

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad

¶17

M/s Airlink tndia Ltd ,, Office at Victoria Castle, Sl., 2nd Floor, H.No. 1-845011lA-159 and 160, Sardar Patel Road, Near Airport Flyover, Secunderabad-3, Rep. by Branch Officer G. Brahmananda Reddy.

¶18

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner No.1: SRI P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE'V'VENUCTOPAL}

¶24

CRIMINAL RTVISION^{CASE No.1971 0F 2009}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The2.arespondent-complainant(whoisaF.reightClearing Services Company)^{Iiled a complaintbefore tht: XI Additional} Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Secunderabad(for short' "the trial} Court") alleging that^{petitioner No' 1 (who is the Proprietor of} petitioner No.2-M/s.Sarvam^{Exports)approachedthe} complainant for^{freight clearing and forwardingof export goods to} their customers^{atLondon,United KingdornRespondent} No.2 /compiainaut^{rendered the freight forwarding;servicesto the} petitioners. Petitioners^{fell due arr amount of Rs' 12'08'483/-arrd} in discharge of^{thesarne issued fourchequesbearing} Nos.472623, 472624,^{472620and' 472613 each for Rs'8'483/-'} Rs.4,OO,OO0/-,^{Rs.4,00,O00/-and 4,00,000/-all drawn on State} Bank of India^{ofHyderabad, however,thechequeswere} dishonoured on^{presenting for encashmentby respondent No'2} onl4.o5.2Oo3forthereason.Insufficientfunds,,.Inspiteofthe complainalt issuing^{astatutory legal notice (Ex'P6) by Post} (Ex.P7-postal receipt,^{and Exs'P8 to} PlO postal acknowledgments),^{the petitioners failed to repay the amount due} under the dishonoured^{cheques' Allegingthat the petitioners-'}

¶27

/l/t

¶28

¶29

failed to discharge the legally enforceable debt under the aforementioned cheques, the complainant filed a case i.e., Calendar Case No.1403 of 2003 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- I to P-25 on behalf of the complainant, and the evidence of DW-l and the documents Exs.D-l to D-7 on beha-lf of the petitioners, found petitioner No.l guilty of the offence and uide Judgment dated 22.L1.2008 in C.C.No. 1403 of 2003 sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one yearand pay Rs. I ,OO0/ - 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 frled an Appeal i.e., Criminal Appeal No.393 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

I I

+',;.+':i..'

material on record,^{passed the Judgment datr:<l 20 '10 '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 tlrr:sarrle} '^the petitioners/ accu sed frled this^{CriminalRevision Case'}

¶38

Heard learned counsel for^{the revisionpetitioners' and} learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutorappearing for respondent} No.l-State. Despite^{service of notice, none apD'3aredfor the} unofficial respondent.^{Perusedthe record'}

¶39

5.Learnedcounselforthere'risionpetitionerscontendedthat the trial court zrs^{well as the appellateCourt failecl to appreciate} the evidence available^{on recordinproper perspectiveand} concurrently found^{the petitionersguilty of the allegedoffence.} Therefore, seeks^{to set aside the impugnedjudgmt'nt'}

¶40

Learned Assistant^{PublicProsecutorcontended that both} the courts upon careful^{scrutiny of the evidence availableon} record rightly^passed their^{respective judgrnents and the} interference of this court^{is unwarranted. There:fore,seeks to} dismiss the Revision .

¶41

I I

¶42

¶43

A perusal of the record shows that this Court urde order dated 25.11.2009 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 satisfaclion of the trial Court.

¶44

,1" .t

¶45

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.l 1S guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. and convicted him accordingly, and the said hnding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

¶46

9 With regard to sentence of imprisonment, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in favour of petitioner No.l by setting off the sentence imposed by the trial Court confining the sarne to the period of punishment already suffered by him, considering the mental agony and physical incarceration by I roami46 around the Courts, which petitioner No.l would have suffered during the course of litigation before the trial Court and

¶47

¶48

¶49

the appellate Court,^{subject to the petitioners depositingan} amount of Rs.12,08,483/-^{withina period of six months from the} date of receipt of^{a copy of this order to the creditcf C'C'No' 1403} of 2003 before the^{trial Court with simple interestat 6ok pet}

¶50

annum from the^{date of judgment of trial courtutntil the date of} the order passed by^{this Court. Upon such deposit, the 2"d} respondent/Complainant^{is permitted to withdrav'rthe same to} the satisfaction of the^{learned trial Court. In default, the} petitioner/ accused shall suffer^{the imprisonmentas modifred by} the appellate Court^{uide impugnedjudgment dated22'11 2OO8'}

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Miscellareous Petitions,^{pending ifany, sha1lstand}

¶54

closed

¶55

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS AR //TRUE COPY// tKl=j'-'. I SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To, '1 . The Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (pOA) Act, _ cum - Vl Additional lVletropolitan Sessions Judge, Securderabad.

¶57

2 The Xl Additional Chief lr/etropolitan MagistratE, becurrcerabad.

¶58

3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High c6urt for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad[OUT]

¶59

4 One CC to Sri P Vanrsheedhar Redd y, Advocate [OPUCJ 5 Two CD Copies p lp

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11012024

'{:' ORDER

¶64

CRLRC.No.1971of 2009

¶65

' '::i;'1'-;;;,..t--.-t-'
.'.:.." ' +<br>i u r.t'it zu5 ; )
-i.: t
". ,/
.
....-

¶66

DISMISS!NG THE CRL.R.C.

¶67

b 'A(
le

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Syed Ashfaq Vs The State of Telangana