Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Dubbaka Venkataiah Vs the State of A.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

Home
Telangana HC
2024
Dubbaka Venkataiah Vs the State of A.P.Dubbaka Venkataiah v. the State of A.P.

Dubbaka Venkataiah v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024CRLRC/2275/2012

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT…

What the court decided

AI extract

Issue for consideration

Whether to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner in a vehicular accident case.

A

[32ee I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

:PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOt 2275 OF 2012

Between:

qqBlaA[A VENKATAIAH, S/o.Narsaiah R/o.pedda Madugula (V) Madugut (M) RR. Dist., Rt/o.Ptot No.8, Sai Town Ship, M.S.R.Nagar C"otony, Manneg;j, RR Dist.

Petitioner

AND

THE STATE OF A.P., Rep. by its Pp.,

High Court of A.P., through police Madgul p.S.

Respondent

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner in a vehicular accident case.

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

IPC304-A
Cr.P.C.397, 401

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Venkataiah
respondent
The State of A.P.

Coram

AI extract

E.V. Venugopal

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 18 Mar 2024 · March
Registered: 14 Nov 2012
Case no.: CRLRC/2275/2012

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from E.v. Venugopal

Mohammad Sulthana Begum Vs Guguloth Sakunthala
15 Mar 2024
Smt K.Kavitha, Secunderabad and Anr., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.
15 Mar 2024
G.Krishnamurthy, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.
14 Mar 2024
Chennaram Niranjan Reddy , Raghavender Reddy Vs the State of A.P.
18 Mar 2024

Cite this judgement

Dubbaka Venkataiah v. the State of A.P., CRLRC/2275/2012 (TEL), decided on 18 March 2024.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

IPC304-A
Cr.P.C.397, 401

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

E.V. Venugopal

Parties & counsel

A compact analysis

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.

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.p.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminai R6vision case, the High court may be pleased to file this criminal revision case against the Judgment and sentence passed in CC No.524 of 2006 dt.14th August iOlZ, tlts. 304-A IPC Sec 66, 181 of M.V Act on the file of Judt. Magistrate oi First Class at Kalwakurthy and consequential Judgement in crl.A.No.66 of 2012 on the file of sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar dt.8th November 2012 for the following grounds among other.

IA NO: 1 OF 2012

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant lnterim suspension of Judgment in CC No.524 of 2006 dt. 14th August, 2012 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First class at Kalwakurthy and consequeintial Judgment in Crla No.66 of 2012 dated O8-1 1-2012 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the revision caJe.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B. Satish, represented by

Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent: Assistant Public prosecutor

The Court made the following: ORDER

t.,':

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL REVIsro N cAs E No.2275^{oJ 2OL2}

ORDER:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under^Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by^{the judgmentdated} 08.11.2012 in Crl.A.No.66 of 2012^{passed by the learned} Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar^(for short'appellate^Court') modified the^judgment dated 14.08.20L2^{in C.C.No.524of 2006} passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy^(for short'trial Court').

The brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2006 al 10.00 hours., when the complainant/Smt.Anasuya^{and his} brother-in-law Hanumanthu and his wife^{padma have attended} the cradle ceremony at Madgul^{Village, on 21.O7.2006at 1 P.M.} after attending the function, they left^{Madgulto go to their} village Kudhbaksipally with company of deceased/Anasuya^and PW.2 and PW.5 in an auto bearing^{No.AP22U-9578,when the} auto reached near Kulkulpally Village, another^{auto without} number came in opposite direction at high speed and^dashed against their auto, due to^{which his deceasedwife fell downon} the road and sustained injuries and she was shifted^to

a-

-1'-

)

Hyderabad^{and got admittedat Owaisi Hospital' Hyderabad' and} while undergoing^{treatment, she died on 2l'07'2006'Basing} on the complaint^{of LW.13,Crime No'56 of 2006 for the} offences^{punishableunder Sections 304-A'66 and 181 of} M.V.Act. After^{the completion of investigation and filing of} charge sheet,^{the same was numberedas C'C'No'524of 2006} learned Judicial^{Magistrateof First Class'} passed bY the KalwakurthY.

\

During the^{course of trial, on behalf of the} prosecution,^{PWs.1 to 12 were examined and got markedas} Exs.P1 to^{6. In defence,there is no evidence adducedon behalf} of the^{petitioner/accused either oral or documentary'}

After appreciating^{the oral and documentary} evidence available^{on record, the trial Courtconvicted} petitioner/accused^{under Section 255 (2) Cr'P'C and sentenced} him to undergo^{simple imprisonmentfor a periodof two (2)} years for the offence^{under Section304-A IPC and to pay a fine} of Rs.500/-,^{in default of paymentof fine' the accusedshall} suffer further^{one (1) month simple imprisonment'}

Aggrieved^bY the same, the Petitioner/accused No.66 of^{2012passed by the.learned} preferred Criminal^APPeal

-)

^

Sessions Judge,^{Mahabubnagar,the appellateCourt, afterre-} appreciating of^{evidenceand the material available on record,} allowed the^{appeal in part vide judgment dated 0B'11'2012in} Criminal Appeal^{No.66 of 2012 passed by the trial Court, the} appellant/accused^{sentenceto undergosimple imprisonment for} a period^{of two years for the offence under Section 304-AIPC is} reduced to a^{period of six (6) months and the sentence of} imposition of^{fine in respect of offence under Section18l of} M.V. Act needs^{no interferenceand it is confirmed' Aggrieved by} the same, the^{petitioner/accusedhas preferred the present} Criminal^{Revision Case.}

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner contended that} both the Courts^{below erred in placingthe relianceon the} evidence of^{PWs.3and 4, who are the circumstantial witnesses} and except^{the deceased none are injured and she fell down on} her own but^{she did not sustaininjuries because of the} accident.^{On the other hand, the learned AssistantPublic} Prosecutor^{submitted that the trial Court after appreciatingthe} evidence^{on recordin proper perspective,rightly convictedand} sentence^{the petitioner/accusedfor the aforesaid offence304-A} IpC and^{rightly confirmedthe convictionand sentenced}

i I
,-

4

l I l j I I

recorded by the trial Court and hence no interference is called for by this Court.

Heard Mr.B.Satish, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused the record.

B. Learned Assistant public prosecutor submitted that the trial Court after careful consideration of the material placed on record passed the impugned order. Therefore, the interference of this Court is unwarranted and therefore seeks to dismiss the revision.

A perusal of the record shows that this Court ybe order dated 75.LL.2012 suspended the sentence alone and enlarged the petitioner on bail on condition of his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/_ with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

A perusal of the evidence and the material available on record reveals that ths._re is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to the revision petitioner/accused n\ about the rash and negligent driving of the auto. Therefore,

)

this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted as far as conviction recorded against the petitioner/accused is concerned. But with regard to the sentence, it is to be seen that the offence took place in the year,2006 and this revision was filed in the year 2012 i.e. after a lapse of six years. Therefore, taking into consideration the mental agony and hardship suffered by the petitioner/accused for all these years, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, while confirm ing the conviction for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, however, the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner/accused has been set aside.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE^COPY// "?giPi'$HfiHH 'I^/ SECTION^OFFICER

To,

THE^{Sessions Judge' Mahaboobnagar}

2.^{The Judicial Magistrate of First Ctass' Kalwakurthy} a. ,na^{S.H O , Madgul P'S (by RPAD) Ranga Reddy District} a Two CCs^{to the qublicProsecutor'HighCourt for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad^{IOU I I} S. One^{CC to SRI T RAJINIKANTH REDDY Advocate [OPUCI} ,h -r..,^ r:n COPIES'

| :,i-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810312024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2275 of 2012

o t{ thE StAI€
(
) I
I,, )) 0 6 JUri 2024
/
t ,7
gO
SPAr 'tH

DISMISSING / MODIFYING THE C RL.R.C.

Cl)'io 99--,. -asV*

CNR

HBHC010141432012

Topic

Cheque Dishonour

Bench

Disposal

DISMISSED

Smt P.Swarna Latha Vs Smt Chandrakala and Another

18 Mar 2024

Nandulal Kori Vs Nanda Kishore Ladda and Anr.

18 Mar 2024