Partly allowed

P.Nanda Kishore Padakal, Gowlipura, Hyderabad v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Telangana HC16 Dec 2024CRLRC/2344/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court processed a criminal revision regarding a cheque dishonour case. Recognizing fourteen years of litigation and mental agony, the Court reduced the sentence to match time already served while dismissing the revision on other grounds.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; Criminal Revision Case dismissed on other grounds.

P.Nanda Kishore Padakal, Gowlipura, Hyderabad Vs the… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGIl COURT FOR THE STATF, OF TELANCANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, TI IE SIXTITT:NIH DAY OF DIICEMBER 'I^iO THOUSAND AND 1'\'i1N I'Y FOUR

¶3

I)RESENI'

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SIII IUSTICE E.V. VENUCOPAL

¶5

Crirninal l{er,ision Casc No.234.1 of 201i)

¶6

Criminal revision filtcl under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the crrtlcl datcd 07.72.2010 prassctl in Crl.A.No.;136 of 2009 on the file of the IV r\clditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, I{yrlerabad preferred against the order tlatecl 09..12.2009 passtd in C.C.No.218 of 2008 on the file of the XV Additional Juilge-curn-XIX^{AdditionalChief MctropolitanN,lagistrate,I-Iyderabad.}

¶7

[]t'tlr.een:

¶8

I'.Nauc1a Kishole l)atlakal, S/o- I'.Ramesh, agerl about 28 ycars, Occ: Irrivate I r rrr p,loys's, R l o. 1 8-7 -90 / C1, Cha h'ina ka, Gon, l i p ura, H1'e{erabad.

¶9

...Petitioner/ Appellant/ Accused.

¶10

.ANt)

¶11

L lhe State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosccutor, High Court of A.I'., Hyderabad. 2. C,.Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Bcc'rna Rcdclr,, agecl about 61 1,ears, Retd. Govt. Scrwant as DSP R/o. N4lG 284, Musk Mahal Complcx, HUDA Colony, Attapur' Hyderguda' Hyclerabacl

¶12

-.. Resironcrsn 1s/ Comptainants.

¶13

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2010(C RLRCMP. NO:3524 OF 2010)

¶14

Petition under Section 397 (1) r/w. Sec.:lE2 Cr.l'].C. praying that in the circumstanccs stated ir-r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the sentence of the court below i.e., the irnpugned judgment oi the learned XIX Addt. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I Ivderabad in C.C.No. 218 of 2008 clated 09-12-2009 which was confirmed by tlrc, IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No. 436 of 2009 dated 07 -12-2010 ancl release/enlargc the petitioner/ accused on bail on same tcrms and conditions of the lower court in the interest of^justice.

¶15

Counsei for the Petitioner: Sri Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy.

¶16

Counsel^(or the Respondent No.1: f he l']ublic Prosecutor

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri l'].Vinod Kumar.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

,._- !f.

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. \T TNUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2344 ( F 2O1O

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking n set aside [he judgment clated 07 12.2OIO in Criminal Appeal I io.436 ol 2009 on the file of thc learned IV Additional Metrop ,litan Sessions Judge, H),derabad (for short, "the appellate Co, :r',) confirming the jr-rdgment clated 09.12.2009 in C.C.No.218 ol I00B on rhe file of the learned XV Additional Judge -cum- XIX .\ lditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short,^,,tht trial Court,,).

¶24

Heard Ms.Pavithra, learned counsel reJ rest:ntinp Sri D.Venkat Reddy,', learned counsel for the I etitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutcr irppearing for the respondent No. 1-State

¶25

Despite service of notice, there was no rel)r esentation on behalf of the unofficial respondent on 2g . '.0 .2024 and 02.12.2024. Even today also, there is no represent: [ion on behalf of the unofficial respondent-respondent No.2, in s pite of listing the matter under the caption,^.,for orders,,. Theref: .e, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits ol , Le case as per

¶26

¶27

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani Singh and others Vs. Sta.te of Uttar Pradeshl", wherein it^ryas categorica-lly held that the High Court cannot^dismiss any^appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without^{examining the merits.}

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner accused is the friend of complainant's younger son C.Siva^KumarReddy. The accused, son of the complainant and two^othercommon friends planned to go South Africa in the month^{of October, 2005'} The accused a-long with his father approached the^complainant and requested for debt of Rs.1,14,OOOl- and^{promised to repay} the same within a month. Then the complainant^{gave ar amount} of Rs.1,!4,OOOl- to the accused. After the^{accusedreturn from} South Africa, in the month of December,^{2OO5 when the} complainant demanded for repayment of the amount,^the accused issued cheque bearing No.451695, dated^{18.01.2006 for} Rs.1,I4,0OO/- drawn on ICICI Bank Limited,^{S.R.Nagarbranch,} Hyderabad and requested the complainant to^{present the same} in the month of May, 2006. Then on^{22.05.2006,the} complainant presented the said cheque through^{his banker} Andhra Bank, Khairathabad Branch,^{Hyderabad, the same was} returned with an endorsement 'funds^{insufficient'.Therefore,o-n}

¶29

| {l99fr1 4 Supreme Cou( Cases 720

¶30

r==j_-E+

¶31

¶32

insufficient'. Therefore, on issuing the statLrtor\ egal notice and complving with all Lhe statutory requirements, t te complainant filcd the presen t complaint under Section 138 () tht' Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act").

¶33

The trial Conrt vide judgment daterl )9.12.2009 in C.C.No.218 of 20O8 found the petitioner/accus(', I glrilty for the olfence punishable under Section 138 of NI A<.r and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a peri,r I of six month and to pay fine oi Rs.S,OOO/ , in default of par.rr ent of fine, he shall undergo Simpie Imprisonment for a perio<l , f three rveeks. Aggneved by the same, the petitioner preferred ttrc {ppeal.

¶34

The appeliate Court vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by tl.r: tnal Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the prr: ent Revision.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioner contended tlr rt the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court faile j to zrppreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspec -. le and passed i their rlspective Judgments. Therefore, he seeks r< set. aside thg: impugned judgment.

¶36

¶37

¶38

l,earned Assistalt Public Prosecutor^{submitted that the} iearned appellate Court rightly^passed the^{impugned Judgment} and the interference of this Court^{is unwarranted.Therefore,} learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{seeks todismissthis} Criminal Revision Case

¶39

Having regard to the submissiol-ts^{made by learned couusel} for the petitioner, upon considering^{the fact that the petitioner} suffered mental agony and hardship^{during the course of} litigation before the trial Court as well^{as the appellateCourt and} as fourteen long years have elapsed^{from the date of fiiing this} Revision and relying upon the decisions of^{the Hon'ble Supreme} Court in Damodar S. Prabhu^{Vs. SayedBabalali, R. VijayanVs.} Baby3, S.R. Sunil & Company Vs. D.^{Srinivasavaradan4,} Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh^Vs. Vijay^{D.Salvis and} Somnath Sarkar Vs. Utpal Basu Mallicko,^{this Courtis inclined} to take a lenient view in so far as the^{sentence is concerned by} reducing the period of imprisonment^{imposed against him to that} of the period which he already undergone.

¶40

'^{zoto(s) scc eol}

¶41

'(zorz)^+,sct:oo

¶42

"^{(2014)16 scc12}

¶43

t 1zot5y s scc ozz

¶44

o zor I 1ro; scc +os

¶45

¶46

Except the above modification, in all otl- t r aspects, the

¶47

Criminal Rcvision Case stands dismissed.

¶48

lL Accordinglr', the Criminal Revision Case is di unissed.

¶49

NIisct-'llaneo rr s Petitions, per-rdrng rl any, shall stancl closecl.

¶50

SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL )EPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'I . 'l hc IV Ar]tlition.rl I\4 c,tro]ro li tan Scssions juclge, [-lv.i: 'abad 2. I hc XV l\tlclrtiona[ [ut'lric-cu nr-X IX Aclclitional Chic-l ] lr,trop6[11s11 Maglstra te, Hvrlt'r'a ha11.

¶55