High Court of Telangana dismissed criminal revision challenging conviction for cheque dishonour. Court upheld conviction but increased fine and set off future imprisonment against time already undergone.
Fine increased to Rs. 25,000-; imprisonment set off against time undergone; default one month rigorous imprisonment.
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.
J I
I I
,,;::ff ,:ii:;t,ygif; *',J,*HXf :3#s"_::,",1Tiii,ilfl S#;;j
fN rHE H|GH "orTfSfoHlBlt . oF TELANGANA THURSDAY, *" ;irTrliitsxli.NrH Dnv orrRRclj
PRESENT
THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTCE E.V. VENUGOPAL cRtIt4INAL REVlstON cAS E No t2371 of 2012
the order dated 2O_11-201 Criminal Revision Case2 filed p under Sections Sg7 & 40'l of Cr.p.C., aggrieved by the assed in Crl.A.No.138 of Additional Metropoli ta 2012 on the fite of the Court of n Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. prefered against the Judg ment dated 09_02_2012 made in CC.No.97 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the lMagiXVI strate at Additional Judge, Hyderabad City Civil Court-cum -XX Additional Chief Metropolitan
Between:
B. Buchaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age:45 years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.B-3-22811, t-(ahamath Nagar, yousufguoa, tlvoeia6li.", """. ","
...Petitioner/AppellanUAccused
AND
...RespondenURespondenUComptainant
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. MADHAVI, amicus Curiae representing M/s. G.V. RAGHAVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KHAJA VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI D. KODANDA RAMI REDDY
\he Coutt ma& the to\ou\ns: oRDER
,i i
THEHONOURABLE SRT JUSTICEE' V' VENUGOPAL CRIMTNALREvtsIONCA SE N o.231l oF2012
ORDER:
Thepresentcriminalrevisioncaseis fi1ed under Sections397 and 40t ofCr'P C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 20'l1 2012 in Crl.A.No.138of 2012passed by theleamedI Additional Metropolitan SessionsJudge, Hyderabad(for sho(.the appellateCourt') modifying the Judgnrentdated 09'02'2012in C C No'97 of 2010 passedby the XVI AdditionalJudge, City Civil Court-cum-Xx Addl' ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate,Hyderabad (for short 'the trialCourt')'
3 Though the notice sent under certificate ofposting was seryed on accuscd on 24.07.2009 demal the accused to pay the amoLtnt due, the accused neither made r"r'o'" rent of the amount due nor gave anv reply.
2
I
Therefore, respondent No.2/complainant filed the present C.C.No.97 of 2010 on the file of XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court _ cum_ XX Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for thc offence punishable under Section I3g of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ..the NI Act').
,r1r,""",,1;,;",!:;l:,,;::;:X,;rf ff ,f:,:?"#;,::; urd", Instrument Acs""tior't.l and ^he is convicted for the said offence ,1ttei0,^"fi),,ii;;;;i:li,:;:tr:;1,;:ii;ii fine of Rs.s.ll.oy,, ii.1"nh ,irlil,'i #1,,e to suffer :ff::"'::;:):":'rb:-! 'J'"'tr7'i'"i *onthror'the A c t. t t B t ro "'r:::;Ljt: *:l'! : Ini n:,j:,;:Wi accused if any, u o,ai"a to iJ;;;;;i";,;: section 428 of Cr.p.C"
"ln the result, the appeal prcferred by the appcllan t/accused is hereby dismissed. gir, ,n" ,"nt"n"i
3
I I
of itnprisonmcnl inrposcd h.v thc trial Court is herebv ntodi/i<,tl us lbllorts: that lhe accuscd is convicted under Scction 386 (b) (iiil of Cr.P.C and scntenced tlrc acct,scd to toklrrgo simple imprisonment .lbr three ntonths tnrl to po.v .lirc of Rs.5,000/- in dcfault to undergo sintple imprisonmenl for FiJieen da.vs .fttr the oflbncc under S<'ction 138 oJ' Negotiablc Inslrumanl Act. I'1rc actused alrtarlr paid lhe fine antourtt beforc thc trial('ourt '[he sunrc slnll be adjusted for the fine omount intpost:d irt this appcol.
Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is preferrerl
4
a
payment, respondent No.2/ is permitteci to same to the satisfactioh or'"ompruinant Additional luase, citv;j::j: cum- XX chief Metroporir.Xvi Hvderabad' In d,efaurr, the peririoner shail suffer .,*r,"',I^1^ "ate' month. ) Imprisoftxent for a penod of one (01)
Miscellaneous petitions, pcnding ifany, shall stand closed.
.l
S D/. CH. V-E N KATESWARU LU, DEPUry REGISTRAR:
//TRUE COPY//
1\ VSEcTt FICER
To,
CHT
I
t
l I i
HIGHCOURT
DATED:1410312024
/:
f.'i
l_!
l! i,,'
I
?l [ir 2Ul
t '.- .i.;'l
i]..i
.,,:/
-;"
ORDER
CRLRC.No.2371o12012
DISM'SS'NG OF THE CRIMINAL REY'S'ON CASE
CJ-tl1ah/z!
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pending sentence of imprisonment undergone by the accused can be set off against the future sentence in criminal revision.
Whether the fine imposed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be increased during criminal revision.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
B. Buchaiah
The State of A.P.
K. Ravi Shankar Reddy
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
