Partly allowed

Vema Kalpana v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024CRLRC/244/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal revision challenging conviction for cheque dishonour. Court upheld presumption under Section 139 NI Act, finding no error in original judgments. Reduced sentence to time already served, directing deposit of compensation within one year.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; accused directed to deposit compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- within one year; otherwise, simple imprisonment for one month.

Vema Kalpana Vs The State of Telangana and another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by^the order of the High Court dated.19-04-2021 in LA.No.2 of 2021 in Crl.R.C^No.244of 2q21

¶2

¶3

[³²⁹⁹¹

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 244OF 2021

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.PC against the Judgment dated 01-04-2021 made in Crl.A,No.398 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar preferred against the Judgment dated 13-04-2016 made in C.C.No. 66 of 20'15 (Old-No.930 of 2015) on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L B Nagar, R.R.District.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Vema Kalpana, Wo. Late Vema Srinivas, R/o.H.No.1-16-196/4, Flat No.'101, Vema Kamala Towers, Shyama Builings, Begumpet, Secunderabad And also at 6-5-394, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

¶12

...Petitioner(Accused/Appellant)

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad-

¶15

B.Surender, S/o.B.L.Narasimhaiah, aged 55 years, Occ.Retired Employee, R/o.Goldage Home, Saroorngar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

...Respondents (ComplainanURespondent)

¶17

lA NO: 3 OF 202'l

¶18

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 extend the order dt . 0910412021 in l.A.No.2 ol 2021 in CrIRC No.244 of 2021 permitting the Petitioner to deposit the 50% of the Cheque amount in the Court below to the credit of Cc.No.66 of 20'15 on the file of the Vll Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, L B Nagar Ranga Reddy.

¶19

IA NO: 4 OF 2O2'l

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

B.Surender, S/o. B. L. Narasimhaiah, aged 55 years, Occ.Retired Employee, R/o.Goldage Home, Saroorngar, Ranga Reddy District

¶22

...Pr:titioner/Respondent

¶23

AND

¶24

Vema Kalpana W/o. Late Vema Srinivas, R/o.H.No.'1-1€;-'196/4, FlatNo.'10'1 , Vema Kamala Towers, Shyama Builings, Begumpet, Secunderabad And also at 6-5-394, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

¶25

...RespondenUPetitioner

¶26

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶27

...Respondents/Respondents

¶28

Petition uqder Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that irr the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ther High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dtd: 191412021 in lA NCr.2 of 2021 in CrIRC No.244 of 2021

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V V S Satyanarayana

¶30

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

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Srikanth Hariharan

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

'jt

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.^VENUGOPAL

¶35

CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE^{No.244 OF 2O2L}

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

This Criminal Revision Case is^{frled seekingto set aside} the judgment dated O1.O4.2021 in Criminal^{Appeal No'398 of} 2016 passed by the learned Special^{SessionsJudgefor Trial} of cases under SCs & STs^(POA) Act-cum-VII^Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga^{Reddy Districtat} L.B.Nagar -(for short, "the appellate Court")^{confirrningthe} judgment dated 13.04.2016 in C.C.No.66 of 2015 (old C.C.No.930 of 2015) passed by the^{learned VII Special} Magistrate, Hasthinapuram,^{L.B.Nagar,RangaReddy District} (for short, "the trial Court").

¶38

Heard Mr.V.V.S.Satyanarayana, learned^counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr.^{E. Ganesh, learned} Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing^{for respondentNo.1-} State and Mr. Srikanth Hariharan,^{learnedcounsel} representing on behalf of respondent^{No.2. P,err-rsed} Jhe - record

¶39

¶40

EW,J C.LR.C.No.244 of 2O21

¶41

The brief facts of the case are thir.t respondent No.2/complair-r:rnt and petitioner/ accus,:rl are well acquainted u,ith each other. On such acctr.raintance, the complainant gave a sum of Rs.6,OO,O00 / - at different instances as hand loan to the accused to meet her necessities and she promised to return the s;zrme within six months ancl issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.6,00,O00/(Rupees six lal<hs only) under Ex.P1 bearirLg No.205184, d.rted 09.07.2015 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Begumpet, Secunderabad in favour of the complainant torn,ards discharge of debt. The complainanl presented the said cheqlre: u,ith his banker Dena Bank, Saroornagar branch on lO.O7 .2015 and the said cheque was returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". 'lhereafter, on issuing the lcgal notice and complying with all the statutory requirement s, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section l38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "N I Act")

¶42

The trial Court vide judgment dated 13.04.20 16 in C.C.N^I q^{66 of 2015 (old} C.C.No.930 of 20 15) found the petitioner/ accuscd guilty of the offence punishable under

¶43

.pi*.. - 9*F

¶44

¶45

EW,J CrLR.C.No.244 oJ 2O21

¶46

?,\

¶47

Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced her^to undergo^rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and^directed her^to pay fine of Rs.6,1O,OOO/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ten^thousand only) to PW 1, in defauit of payment of fine amount,^to undergo simple imprisonment for a^period of^{one (1) month.} Aggrieved by the same, the^{petitioner preferred the Appeal.}

¶48

The appellate Court vide impugned^judgment, dismissed the appeal confirming the^{judgmentpassedby the} trial Court. Assailing the same, the^{petitioner preferredthe} present Revision.

¶49

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner^submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, without appreciating the evidence available on record in^proper perspective erroneously found the petitioner guilty of^the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI^Act. Therefore, he seeks to allow the Revision.

¶50

On the other hand, learned counsel for^respondent No.2 submitted that the trial Court as well as^appellate Court, upon appreciating the material available on^record, rightly passed their respective^judgments and^{interferencqof}

t i \ l

EWJ CrLR.C.No.244 of 2O21

¶56

this Court is unwarranted. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the Revisior-r

¶57

B. On bchalf of the complainant, the trial tlourt examined the complainant himself as PW1 and markeri Exs.P1 to P9. On bchalf of acr:used he himself was examined as DWI but no documents were marked

¶58

The vcrsion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that accused issued tu,o cheques to PW1 and that PW1 used to purchesc curries at her curry point and PW1 requested her to supplv crrrries to Anadha ashram in tl-rat effect oral agreement tool< place between PW1 and herself and all curries purchased by PW1 was recorded in a note book but she did no1 pr-oduce any document to pl'c,ve her case. Further, the slgnature found on Ex.P5 acknorvledgement is not that of thc accused. If at all, the said '",ersion of the accused is t c, bc considered, nothing would hilve prevented her from givir-rg anv report to the poiice. On the other hand, the complair-rant b1' his orai and documentarl' evidence, has clearly established that the accused has issued cheques in question in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Therefore,

¶59

¶60

EW,J Crl.R.C.No.244 of 2O21

¶61

the trial Court found that there are no circumstances to doubt the version of PW 1 .

¶62

A perusai of record reveals that the oral testimony of PWl coupled with Ex.Pl to P9 clearly established that PWI has amounts in his bank account as per Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 statement and accused borrowed Rs.6,00,OOO/- from PW1 on various dates and executed Ex.Pl acknowledgement of debt and to discharge of the legally enforceable debt accused issued Ex.P2 cheque and the cheque was presented before the bank and the sarne was dishonoured due to insufhcient funds subsequently inspite of several demands the accused did not repay the due amount.

¶63

1 1. As per Section 139 of the NI Act, there is a presumption that the cheque is received towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and the contrary has to be proved by the accused. But the accused failed to discharge his initia-I burden by examining any of the witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act

¶64

¶65

EW,J C.LR.C.No.244 oI 2O21

¶66

and passcd rhe judgment dated 13.O4.207(' in C.C.No.66 of 2015.

¶67

12 . In tl're appeal, the appellate Courl heid that the evidence ol PW I ar-rd the circumstances of the case draw the presumption as envisaged under Section l llr) of the NI Act The accusecl had not rebutted the said presumption, by p'lacing anr oral or documentary evidence lc, prove that the signature on the Ex.P5 acknowledgment does not belong to her. Thus. the appellate Court held that the complainant had proved the guiJt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and renderecl the impugned^judgment.

¶68

This Court vide order dated 19.04.202 1 suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the tr,3titioner during the pendenc.,'of the Revision and released her on bail on her executing :r personal bond for a sum of Rs.1>,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfac1.ion of the trial Court. Latcr', the matter underwent several adjournments.

¶69

) 4 . In th e case on hand, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court hcld that the petitioner ua.s guilty of the offenfe pLrnrshable under Section 138 of tlrt: NI Act, which

¶70

¶71

EW,J crt.R.c.No.24a oJ 2O21

¶72

I I

¶73

I I

¶74

finding, in my considered view, does not ca-ll for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

¶75

1 5. Having regard to the submissions^. made by both the learned counsel, 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 appellate Court and as three years have elapsed from the date of hling of this Revision, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in her favour and the sentence imposed against the petitioner is reduced to the period which she had already undergone The petitioner is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.6,10,000/- (Rupees six lakhs ten thousand only) including the amount already deposited if any before the trial Court to the credit of C.C.No.66 of 2015^(old C.C.No.930 of 2015) within a period of one year from the date of this order. Upon such payment, respondent No.2 is permitted to withdraw the same to the satisfaction of the tria,l Court. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction she shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month

¶76

¶77

¶78

EW,J C.LR.C.No.244 oJ 2O21

¶79

Except lhe above modification, the Crirninal^Revision

¶80

Case, in all other aspects, stands dismissed.

¶81

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if an'r', shall stand

¶82

closed.

¶83

¶84

Sd/- T. KRISHNA MAR DEPUW REG TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

l l l

The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under S,ls and STs (POA) Act cum VllAdditional District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy district at L.B Nagar

¶90

The lll Additional Metropolrtan Magistrate, L B Nagar, tl.R.District.

¶91

The Superintendent, Women Central Prison Chenchalguda, Hyderabad 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sterte of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶92

One CC to Sri V V S Satyanarayana, Advocate [OPUC]

¶93

6- One CC to Sri Srikanth Hariharan, Advocate [OPUC

¶94

Two CD Copies

ADI(gh

) )

HIGH COURT

DATED:12112t2024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.244 ot 2021

,'.a a- I HE srA 16r
)s
I
, I
.) ll g APt 2025
I c,
.t
'.... lr.s irar a
.\i=_-__

¶103

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶104

e q ed

Vema Kalpana v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vema Kalpana v. The State of Telangana 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

Y.Rama Krishna, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Smt. Md.Chathabee, Vs Md.Yakub

P.Ananda Rao Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Sama Vema Reddy, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Satla Sri Sri Vs State of Telangana

Rajnikanth Reddy Siddenki, Usa, Rep by Father, R.R.Dt., Vs the State of Ap., through Pp., and 2 Others.