Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC21 Oct 2024CRLRC/2024/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court upheld the conviction despite flaws in evidence appreciation. However, acknowledging time spent in litigation, the Court set the sentence to the period already suffered, conditioned upon deposit of the fine amount.

What did the court decide?

Sentence set off to the period already suffered, subject to deposit of fine Rs. 12,08,483/- with 6% simple interest within six months. In default, original sentence applies. Revision dismissed otherwi

Mrs. B.Vasanthi Vs the State of A.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released^{on ball by the} order of the High Court dated.2S-11-2009 in Crl.RC.M.P.No.282B^{of 2009 in Crl.R.C} No.2024 of 2009

¶2

[^32se ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

I,4ONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL R EVISION CASE NO: 2024 OF 2009

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and^{40'1of Cr. PC against} the Judgment dated 20.10.2009 made in Crl.A.No.394^{of 2008on 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 made in C.C.No.1406^{of 2003on the file of the} Court of the Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan^{lvlagistrate, Secunderabad.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mrs. B.Vasanthi, Wo B.B.Murthy, Occ: Proprietrix,^{M/s. SravanExports} 9-3-B4n B, 3rd Floor, Kakatiya Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶11

M/s Sarvam Exports Rep: by its Proprietor lrilrs.B. Vasanthi,^H.No. 9-3-841713, lll Floor, Kakatiya Naga, Hyderabad.

¶12

(P2 impleaded as per court order dated 61912024 in lA No'^112024.1

¶13

... lmplead Revision^petitioner No.2/Accused No.2

¶14

...Petitioner

¶15

AND

¶16

'1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ,Hyderabad.

¶17

M/s. Airlink lndia Ltd., Off. at.Victoria Castle, Sl,2nd^{Floor,H.No.1-B-450i1lA-} 159 and^'160, Sardar Patel Road, Near Airport Flyover,^{Secunderabad-3.Rep.} by its Branch Officer, G.Beahmananda Reddy.

¶18

...Respondent ComPlainant

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri p Vamsheedhar Reddy

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 : Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri N Raghavan(Not present) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE.V.VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL^{REVTSION CASENo.2024 oF 2009}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The2,arespondent-complainant(whoisaFreightClearing Services Company)^{filed a complaintbefore the XI Additional} Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Secunderabad(for short'"the trial} Court') alleging^{that petitionerNo' 1 (who is the Proprietor of} petitioner No.2-M/s.^{Sarvam Exports) approachedthe} complainant^{for freight clearing and forwarding of export goodsto} theircustomersatLondon,UnitedKingdom'Respondent No.2/complarnant^{renderedthe freight forwardingservicesto the} petitioners.^{Petitioners fell due an amount of Rs' 12'08'483/-and} in discharge^{of thesarrle issued four chequesbearing} Nos.472623,^{472624, 472620 and 472613 each for Rs'8'483/-'} Rs.4,OO,OO0/-,^{Rs.4,00,OOO/-and 4'00'OO0/-all drawn on State} BankoflndiaofHyderabad,however,thechequeswere dishonoured^{on 14.05'2003 for the reason "Insuffrcient funds"'} In spite of^{the complainant issuinga statutorylega1 notice (Ex'P6)} by Post^{(Ex.P7-postal receipt,and Exs'P8 toPlO postal} acknowledgments),^{the petitioners failed to repay the amount due} under the^{distronoured cheques' Allegingthat the petitioners} failed to^{discharge the legally enforceabledebt under the-}

¶25

¶26

¶27

aforementioned cheques, the complainant filed a case i.e., Calendar Case No.l4O4 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.')

¶28

The trial Court, after considering the evidence of PW- i, and the documents Exs.P-1 to P-25 on behalf of the complainant, and the evidence of DW-1 and the documents Exs.D 1 to D-7 on behalf of thc petitioners, found petitioner No.l guilty of the offence and uide Judgment dated 22.1 1.2008 in C.C.No. l4O4 of 2003 sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay Rs. l,OOO/- towards fine amounl-. In defauit of payment of fine, petitioner No. I shall suffer Simple Irnprisonment for a period of three months.

¶29

Aggrieved bv the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioners filed an Appeal i.e., Criminal Appeal No.394 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 material on record, passed the Judgment dated 2O.LO.2OO9

¶30

upholding the^{convictionpassed by the trial Court; however' the} sentence of Rigorous^{Imprisonmentimposedby the trial Court} wasreducedtoSixmonths'Challengingthesarne'the petitioners/ accused^{filed this CriminalRevisionCase'}

¶31

Heard learned^{counselfor the petitioners' and learned} Assistant Public^{Prosecutorappearing for respondent No'l-State'} Despite service of^{notice, none appearedfor the unofficial} respondent. Perused^{the record'}

¶32

karned counsel^{for the petitionerscontendedthat the} trial Court^{as well as the appellateCourt failedto appreciate the} evidence available^{onrecord inproper perspective and} concurrently found^{the petitionersguiltyof the allegedoffence'} Therefore, seeks^{to set asidethe impugnedjudgment'}

¶33

Learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor contendedthat} both the Courts^{upon carefulscrutiny of the evidence available} on record rightly^{passed their respective judgments and the} interference of^{this Court is unwarranted'Therefore'seeks to} dismiss the^Revision.

¶34

7 . A perusal^{of the record showsthat this Courtuide} order dated^{25.ll.2OOgsuspendedthe sentence of imprisonment}

¶35

¶36

imposed against the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 by the appellate Court. pending Revision, on executing a bond oi Rs.S,OOO/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court

¶37

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 concurrentiy held that petitioner No.l is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. and convicted him accordingly, alrd the said finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

¶38

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 same to the period of punishment already suffered by him, considering the mental agony and physical incarceration by roaming around the Courts, which petitioner No. I would have suffered during the course of litigation before the trial Court and the appellate Court, subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.12,08,483/- within a period of six months from the

¶39

-5

¶40

date of receipt of a copy of this^{order to the creditof C.C.No.1404} of 2003 before the trial Court^{with simple interestat 60/oper} annum from the date of^{judgment of trial Court until the date of} the order passed by this Court.^{Upon such deposit, the 2'd} respondent/Complainant is permitted^{to withdraw the same to} the satisfaction of the learned trial^{Court. In default, the} petitioner/ accused shall suffer the imprisonment^{as modified by} the appellate Court uide impugned^{judgment dated22-11.2008.}

¶41

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

¶42

1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision^{Caseis dismissed.}

¶43

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

¶44

closed.

¶45

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DE UTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The special Judge for Trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Actcum-Vl Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, Secunderabad}

¶51

The Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Secunderabad}

¶52

The Superintendent, Chanchalguda^{Jail, Ranga Reddy District}

¶53

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶54

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

¶55

One CC to Sri N Raghavan, Advocate IOPUCI

¶56

Two CD Copies

ADK/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11012024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2O24 of 2009

¶62

Id€ Sr4
('
^(d(
o 29 nln 2gm za
,/
t
aFg E,ATCH E()

¶63

DISMISSING^'I-HE CRLRC

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. B.Vasanthi v. the State of A.P. 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, 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

Syed Ashfaq Vs The State of Telangana