Criminal revision challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour. Court partly allowed revision, confirming conviction but modifying sentence from rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.
Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified to fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to complainant within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I, r
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY FOUR
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2162 OF 2011
criminal Revision case under Sectron 397 & 401of cr.p.c. aggrieved by the order dated o7-1o-2o11 made in crt.A.No.111 of 2010 on the file oi tne court ot the
ll Addl. Mekopolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, preferred against the order passed in cc.No. 436 0f 2008 dated 30-3-2010 0n lhe fite of ihe court of the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan [,{agistrate, Hyderabad.
Between:
p,Aclyutfg !gd_dy, S/o Late Bucha Reddy, Aged 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.27l8, Journatist Cotony. Jubite6 Hitis, Hydeiabad.-- ----"'
... Petitioners/AppellanUAccused
AND
... Respondents/Complainants
.lA NO: 1 OF 20111CRL.R.C. M. P.No.3245 ot 2011 I
Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the sentence awarded by the lower appellate court dt.07-.10-2011 passed in crl.A.No.111 of 2o1o on the file of the court of the ll Addl. Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
counserror thepetitioner : #. 3i";,t".f:1. :!^i;.!L''+''
counsel for the Respondent No.1: [h. Feoraa ad'rcp. sri Khaja vizarath AIi, Asst. Public prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Vedula Srinivas
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2L62 of 2oLL ORDER:
The present crimina-l Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 4Ol of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.10.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.111 ol 2O1O on rhe file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hvderabad (for short the appellate Court') confirming the judgment dated 30.03.2010 passed in C.C.No.436 of 2008 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Addiriona_t Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short 'the trial Court').
rc
2
Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused alleging that the accused was family friend of the complainant. The accused has approached the complainant and requested for hand loa-n to meet his financial requirements. On that the complainant consulted her husband and father-in-law and paid Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash on 19.12.2OO1 arrd that accused has executed promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24 %o per annum and has issued post dated cheque in favour of the complainant. Subsequently, the accused paid interest every month lor some period and later he stopped payment of interest. When the complainant demanded, the accused instructed the complainant to present the cheque for collection. Accordingly, the complainant haspresented the cheque with was her banker for collection, but the said cheque dishonoured as Account-Closed oo 17.O3.2OO4. Then the complainant has issued statutory notice, dated 19.06.2004 through registered post with acknowledgment due anda-lso under certificate of posting. The notice sent undercertif,icate
J
of posting was received by the accused, but, the notice sent under registered post was returned with an endorsement Not-Claimed on O8.OZ.2OO4. The accused neither issued reply nor paid cheque amount. Hence, the comptaint filed for the offence under S.ection l3g of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act).
*32. In the result, the accused. is found_ guiltA for the offence under section 13g of Negotiabre Instrurients Act and is conuicted under Section 2SS(2) of Cr.p.C.
The acansed ts sentenced, to undergo rigorous impisonment for six months and to pag o trne oi ar.S,ooO/_. In default of payment of fine he shail sulfer simpte
impisonment for one month. The entire fine amount shall be pagable for the complainant tou.tards compensation under Section 3 57( 1 ) Cr. P.C."
i I
)
perspective and passed their respective j udgments.
Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment
I O. Recording the submissions made by both the learned Counsel and upon perusing the judgments passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court, this criminal revision case is partly allowed confirming the conviction imposed by the tria,l Court. However, the sentence imposed bv the trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is modified directing the petitioner/accused to pay hne of
Rs. 1,OO,OO0/- including the fine imposed by the trial Court. Out of ',vhich, Rs.9O,0O0/- shall be paid to respondent No.2/
6
complainant within a period of one month from today, in default, the petitioner/ accused sha_ll suffer the judgment passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed bv the appellate Court.
Pending miscellaleous applications, if any, shall stand
clo sed
Sd/.M. MANJ UL,A DEPUTYREGIST den V //TRUECOPY// SECTIONOFFICER
To,
YIR/gh
Lttp
HIGH COURT
DATED:0510312024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.2162 ot 2011
o : 1 E(4
.s' ,<br>,.ii
o s ,il
\o (6
\ ii
y H,r_rlt{ +
DISMISSING/MODIFYING OF THE CRL. RC
0rn^PM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 138 NI Act is sustainable on record?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Laxmidevi
State of AP
Mrs. Ruchita
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
