Dismissed

Veerupaka Bhagya Laxmi v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Dec 2024CRLRC/31/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the High Court rejected the challenge to the conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act. While dismissing the appeal, the Court reduced the petitioner's imprisonment to time served and ordered deposit of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; sentence reduced to time served; compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- to be deposited within four months.

Veerupaka Bhagya Laxmi Vs State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee I

¶2

NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 10-01-2023 in l.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.R.C No.31 of 2023.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 31 of 2023

¶8

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC aggrieved by the Judgment daled 27 -12-2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2017 on the file ,^{of the Court of the Xll Additional Districtand SessionsJudge, R.R.Districtat} L.B.Nagar confirming the Judgment dated.17-03-2017 passed in C.C.No.269 of 20'16 on the file of the Court of the lll Special Magistrate, at Hastinapuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Veerupaka Bhagya Laxmi, Wo- Qopal Reddy, Aged about 35^years, Occ: Housewife R/o.^-Flat No. 203, 2nd Floor, Koushik Apartments Road No.1 , Chanukyapuri, L.B.Nagar.

¶11

..Revision Petitioner/Acc/Resp

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court , Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenURespondent

¶15

Maram Sujatha, W/o. Yadi Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business Rl/o. Plot No.7, hariPuri Colony, Road No-s, L.B.Nagar.

¶16

... RespondenUCom plainanUAppellant

¶17

Between:

¶18

Irilaram Sujatha, Wo. Yadi Reddy, Age:50 years, Occ: Business Rl/o. Plot No.7, hariPuri Colony , Road No.5, L.B.Nagar.

¶19

...Petitioner/Respondent No.2

¶20

AND

¶21

Veerupa<:r ) ragya Laxmi, W/o.^Gopal Reddy, Aged abiort .]5 years, Occ: Housewiie I o. Flat No. 2O3, 2^d Floor, Koushik Apartnrerts Road No. 1, Chanukya;t' , L.B.Nagar-

¶22

... ResponrienUPetitioner

¶23

State of^':e : r qana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Coun , Hy Cerabad.

¶24

...RespondenURespondent

¶25

Petitir:n I rc .- Section 439 (2) R/w Section 482 of Cr.F,.,l.^,rraying that in the circumstan :r:s : l.ated in the affidavit filed in support of the celition, the High Court may be p lea ;r;d to vacate the interim order dated 02-O2-2DZ!in l.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.RC No :'l of 2023.

¶26

Counsel for thr: Pr titioner: Sri C.N. Moorty

¶27

Counsel for the R, spondent No.1: Sri E. Ganesh,

¶28

Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶29

Counsel for ther Rr r;pondent No.2: Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar flecldy

¶30

The Court made tt e following: ORDER

¶31

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶33

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.31 of 2o23 ORDER:

¶34

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment dated 27-122022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2Ol7 by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B. Nagar, confirming the judgment dated 17.O3.2O77 in C.C.No.269 of 2016 on the hle of the Court of the learned III Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein and whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.l. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay compensation of Rs.7,OO,OOO/- within one month, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶35

Heard Sri C.N. Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri E. Ganesh learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No. 1 and Sri

¶36

¶37

PulimamiCi iihashidhar Reddy,^{learned coutrsrel appearing} for responrlt^r Lt No.2

¶38

The b r::f facts of the^{case are that ac':used has} borrowed irr rtmount of^{Rs.6,OO,O00/-from comlllainaltas} hand loarr cr 24.O3.2Oi4 with a^{promise to re piLy the debt} within thre' months and executed an agre(lfl.ent^called "oppand 'atramu"^{infavour ofcompledrLant. Said} transa<:tion I ad taken place in the^{presence rlf one Mr. P.} Chandra Sl:, kar - PW-2, who had signed as^rfre witness on Oppanda P, . ram. Despite elapse of the agre ec1^period of three mon',[ s accused had not dischargecl the dr:bt and on repeate<l cle ::.ands, accused had issued fotrr t:heques in favour of c^, rplainant. When the complainant presented the cheqr-<'s^,rith her bank they were returned having been dishonr:u-cc cn the ground - "Funds Insuffir:ient" and to that effect rleque return memos, dated 2Ct.tl8.2016 and 22.O8.t',O-^{() -,ere} issued. The same was intirnated to the accused trrr. the accused did not pay arythinll.^'lhereafter, the compLrri r:rnt got issued legal notice, datr:cl :i0.08.20i6

¶39

¶40

calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within frfteen days of receipt of the legal notice. The said legal notice was received on 06.O9.2016. Even then, the accused neither had replied the notice nor paid anything. Therefore, complainant hled a case in C.C.No.269 of 2016 against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶41

The learned trial Court vide judgment, dated ,t 17.O3.2O17 in C.C.No.269 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned III Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein and whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay compensation of Rs.7,OO,000/- within one month, in default to undergo simple irnprisonment for three months. The remand period shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal.

¶42

T[e-.learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated 27.12.2022 dismissed the Criminal Appea-l No.445 of 20,17,

¶43

¶44

confirm.in3 tfre Judgment of Conviction^{iutd Sentence} passed b1 tl , : learned trial Court. Assaihng the^{same, the} present Cr r r ra-l Revision Case is preferred

¶45

Learne J counsel for the^petitioner contende d^{that the} learned triirl^,-)ourt and the learned appellate C:urt failed to appreciatt: lre evidence available on record in^proper perspect.ir r and passed their respective J udgments. Therefore. h : ,seeks to set-aside the impr.rgned^jLrclgment

¶46

7 . Lear re I Assistant hrblic Prosecutor sul)n ritted that the leatnt:rl ;ippellate Court rightly passed ttLe impugned Judgmt:nl :,.nd the interference of thrs Court is unu.arran[r:r Therefore, learned counsel secks to dismiss this Crimir r: Revision Case.

¶47

8 Br:fb'c the learned trial Court, oir behalf of prosecul-iorr,^)W-1 and PW-2 rnere examined a.r cl Exs.P-1 to P-12 wert: rr,,rrked. DW-1 and DW-2 were e xrLmined on behalf of ir,:r rLsed. No documents were marked oir beha-lf of accusec[

¶48

¶49

The learned trial Court upon careful consideration of the materia-l available on record found that four cheques, which are marked as Exs.P-2, P-4, P-6 and P-8 were issued by the accused to discharge legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the complainant established the guilt of the accused. Based on the oral and documentar5r evidence on record, the learned tria,l Court by way of its Judgment convicted and sentenced petitioner as stated supra.

¶50

The learned appellate Court upon re-appreciating the material available on record confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶51

A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide Order dated lO-Ol-2O23 passed in I.A.No.Ol of 2023 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending this Criminal Revision Case and enlarged petitioner on bail. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.

¶52

¶53

L2. In tl-r,:^(: rle on hand, the learned trial Coult^{as rvell as} the learni:<l ;,ppellate Court concurrently tLelcl that the petitioner a c r,-rsed herein was found guilty frrr the offence under Se,: i n 138 of N.l. Act, which finding, in my considereci v t w, does not cail for interference,^{iLt r:xercise} of revisional jLr sdiction under Sections 397 arrcl ''01 of the Cr.P.C., ari t ri)re are no grounds much less ralrc:. grounds, or irregulil^-i os, or illegalities, to interferc '*'itl L the well considerer[ ,.J .rCgments of both the Courts antL at cordingly, this Crinri-ra [ievision Case is liable to be clisr.nissed.

¶54

In th,: r rl;ult, the criminal revision case is 1ir';missed

¶55

L4. Hairin:. r(rgard to the submissions madt' irv both the learned cc r- L se1 upon considering thc f ir<:t that the petitioner s,,-ll-ered mental agony and hardship rhiring the course o[ ]i1 . rzrtion before the trial Court as r,r eli as the appellatt: .-(J rt and as three years have elaJrser from the date of filir 1r ,his Revision, this Court is inclinec to take a lenient vie r,' irr favour of the petitioner. Arvar,lr r-r1; sentence

t t

\ \

on the revision petitioner for a period of six (6) months will not compensate the loss incurred by the complainant.

¶60

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, relying on the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dannodar S. Prabhu Vs. Saged Babalall, R. Vijagan Vs. BabgP, S.R. Sanil & Compang Vs. D. Sriniaasaaaradant3, Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijag D. Sakria, Somnath So,rkar Vs. Utpal Basu Mallicks and Girnpex (P) Ltd Vs. Manoj Goel, upon considering the fact that the petitioner underwent mental agony roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by her if any.

¶61

'^{2010 (5) SCC 663}

¶62

, (2012) 1 SCC 260

¶63

3 (2014) 16 SCC 32

¶64

(201s) 9 scc 622 s 2013 (16) SCC 465

¶65

¶66

Ttreteli: r:, the said sentence is accordrrgly modified and reclucr: i to the period already underlpu:: arnd^the revision o:,' rtioner is directed to deposit cor,rltensation amoun, o1^L s.7,0O,000/-, imposed by the lt:arncd Trial Court u,itlrrr lbur (4) months frorn today, in de artlt revision petition r:r r I ral1 suffer the sentence of iInl rrisonment imposc,C^'r- r:arned Tria-l Court and as conlirnLed by the learned Arrp :Ilate Court.

¶67

Misce ll rreous petitions if any pending in lhis criminal revision c,r:;, r;hall also stand dismissed.

¶68

/ l s(ri- K. sAlllEsHl J()ll.lT REGI9TRAR

-q-

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1 . The Xll^r\c : tional Dlstrict and^{Sessions Judge,R R'Dir;tririat L B Nagar} (with rec;c rc : il any)

¶73

The lll^t)pe : al fr,4agiskate, at Hastinapuram,^{RangaRedcy t )istrict'} 3. Two CCs^I rhe Priblic Prosecutor,^{High Courtfor the State rf Telanganaat} Hyderatr:rc CUT]

¶74