Partly allowed

P. Janardhan, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its P Hyd., and Another

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024CRLRC/275/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision by a conviction for cheque bouncing under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court affirmed the conviction but, noting the accused's age exceeded 65, set aside the imprisonment, enhanced the fine to fifteen lakh rupees, and imposed a stay subject to timely payment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of imprisonment set aside and enhanced fine to Rs. 1,50,000/-; imprisonment for default if fine not paid within stipulated period.

P. Janardhan, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its P Hyd., and… — 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 08-02-2011 in Crl R C. No 275 of²⁰¹¹ in Crl.RC.MP. No.425 ot2011.

¶2

132511

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 275 OF 2011

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the Judgment daled 19-11-2010 in Crl.A. No. 183 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad preferred against the Judgment dated^'13-11-2007 passed in C.C. No. 841 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the ll Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

P Janardhan, S/o. Jagannatham, Aged aboul 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o 3-3-39, Masjid Lane L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist

¶11

..Petitioner / Appellant Sole Accused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad

¶14

Dr B Janardhan Rao, S/o. Late Venkatadri, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Govt Employee, R/o. 3-1-101/6, Bank Colony, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶15

...Respondents / Respondents Complainant / s

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP. NO: 425 OF 2 011)

¶17

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 enlarge the petitioner on bail in CC No. 841 of 2005 on the file of the ll

¶18

lrletropolitan [\ragistrate, as confirmed in Crl.A No 183 of 2007 by Addl M.S J., Cyberabad at L. B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, by suspending the sentence therein.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶20

Sri P Srinath

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1

¶22

The Public Prosecutor

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2

¶24

Sri V S Subramanyam

¶25

The Court made the following Order:

¶26

I I

¶27

I I

¶28

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK. SURENDER}

¶29

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.275^{oF 2O11}

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Revision Petitioner was convicted for the^{offence under} Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act^{(for short'the Act').} In appeal, the conviction was confirmed by the^{learnedSessions} Judge.

¶32

Case of the complainant is that he knew accused and in view of his friendship, he gave an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- in cash. Accused repaid an amount of Rs.60,000/- and for remaining balance amount, he issued a cheque. On^{presentation,} the said cheque was returned unpaid on the ground of insufficient funds. Notice sent to accused was returned with an endorsement hnclaimed'. Since notice was sent to correct address and the amount covered by the cheque was not paid, complaint was filed.

¶33

Learned Magistrate examined complainant as PWI and marked Exs.Pl to P5. Learned Magistrate found that the version of complainant was convincing and since there was an outstanding amount and in discharge of same, cheque in question was issued, conviction was recorded. Further, the learned trial

I ,

t9:i", '

Court found that since the address mentioned on lhe notice was correct, it amounts to valid service of notice

¶38

In the Sessions Court, accused raised a ground that notice r.r,as not served on him. Since the notice was sent to correct address, the presumption under section 2z of the General Clauses Act comes into play and it is deemed service of notice. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Courts below. Hou,ever, in view of the fact that revision petitioner is aged more than 65 1,ears, while confirming the convictiol-r, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside, enhancing the fine amount to Rs. 1,50,000/ Revision petitioner-accused shall pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/ in the trial Court within eight (B) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On such payment, the said amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation. If accused fails ro pay the said fine amount within stipulated time, he shali u ndergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶39

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly

¶40

allowed.

¶41

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶42

//TRUE COPY// secrdPsrr^ICER

¶43

To, 1. The Additional^{[t/letropolitan lVlagistrate Sessions Judge, Cyberabad} Z. ffre^{f f lr4etropolitanMagistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District' Hyderabad} 3. The Superintendent,^{Central Jail'Cherlapalli, RR District}

¶44

4 Two Cis to^{the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana'} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶45

One CC to^{Sri P Srinath, AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶46

One CC to^{Sri V S Subramanyam, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶47

twi rF&

¶48

Two CD CoPies

¶49

_..==_64:]: .: -..---l :.

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.275 of 2011

o 1HE S14 /(
a a
,.) (
io J
1E Dtt ttu
pAra. !rE oa

¶56

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLRC

¶57

C,P.q
@,
e\ 1O 2-f

P. Janardhan, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its P Hyd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Janardhan, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its P Hyd., 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

Madipally Varalaxmi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

P.Gangamma and 2 Others Vs B.Shekar and Another

Islavath Bulli and 2 Others Vs G. Venkataiah and Another

J Narsimha, R.R.Dist and Others Vs Sombir, Delhi and Others

S.Upendra Radha Krishna Murthy and Another, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Spl.Pp.

MD Shabheer Vs Apsrtc and Another