Partly allowed

Poloju Raju, Parkal [M], Warangal Dist. v. Singirkonda Ravinder, Karimnagar Dist., and Anr.

Telangana HC2 Aug 2024CRLRC/320/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Section 138 NI Act confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The accused argued notice returned unclaimed meant service requirement unmet. Court held notice to correct address is deemed served, confirmed conviction, enhanced fine by Rs.60,000 as compensation, partly allowed revision.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; additional fine of Rs.60,000 payable to complainant as compensation within four weeks, default sentence three months simple imprisonment on failure.

Poloju Raju, Parkal [M], Warangal Dist. Vs Singirkonda… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

Bail SIip: The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of High Court dated: 22.02.2010 in Crl.RC.MP. 463 of 2010 in Crl.Rc.320 of 2010.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION GASE NO: 320 oF 2010

¶7

Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.p.C., against the order dated. 18-02-2010 in Crl.A. No. 1 of 2009 on the file of ilt Additionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar preferred against the judgment dated 12.12.2OO8 in C.C. No. 236 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Poloju Raju, Parkal S/o. Kumara Swamy Navatha Transport Business, R/o. H.No. 7-15, Parkal Mandal, Warangal District. (A-1)

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Singirkonda Ravinder, S/o. Bugulaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: private Service R:/o. 2-2-132, Boiwada Locality, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T PRASANNA KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: Sri P GIRI KRISHNA

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.32O OF 2O1O

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The revision petitioner/ accused was convictecl for^{the offence} uncler Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments^{Act by the} learned Magistrate and later the same^{was confirmed inthe} appeal.

¶23

Briefly, the case of the respondent/complainant^{is that in} the month of Ju1y, 2006, tlne accused^{requested lor Rs.60,000/-} S loan, hou,ever, Rs.55,00O/ was given. Having^receivedthe amount, the accused handed over two^{cheques for Rs.15,000/-} and 40,000/- to the complainant towards repayment.^{The said} cheques when presented for clearance were returned unpaid^due to insufficient lunds in the account of the accused.^LegalNotice was issued, however, the same was returned as unclaimed.

¶24

According to the complainant since the unclaimed notice amounts to service of notice, complaint was filed

¶25

The trial Judge examined complainant as PW.l and on his behalf marked trxs.Pl to P6. Both the trial Court and the first appeilant court found favour with the confession of the

¶26

¶27

complainant that the cheques were issued towards repayment of the loan and accordingly convicted the accused.

¶28

5 The only ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused is that the notice which was sent was returned unclaimed. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that notice was served, as such, the requirement under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is not fulfilled. For the said reason, conviction has to be set aside.

¶29

On the other hand, it was argued that the notice was sent to the correct address and accordingly both the Courts below found that notice when sent to the correct address and returned as not claimed, would amount to service of notice

¶30

7 . The argument by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not tenable. Admittedly, when notice was sent to the correct address, it is deemed service of notice. Accordingly, conviction is confirmed. However, keeping in view that the transactions are of the year 2006, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the fine amount to Rs.60,000 I apart from the Iine amount imposed by the Court below. The said amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. The enhanced fine amount shall be paid into the trial Court, within four weeks from

¶31

¶32

the date of this order. Failure to pay the said amount^within stipulated trme, the revision^petitioner/ accused shall^undergo default sentence of simple imprisonment of^{three months.}

¶33

Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed

¶34

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any,^pending

¶35

shall stand closed

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

SdI B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY,REGISTRAR . ._/'

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

¶40

The lll Additional Sessions Judge,^Karimnagar

¶41

The Additional Judicial^{Magistrateof First Class Karimnagar}

¶42

The Superintendent,^{DistrictJail, Karimnagar}

¶43

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for theState of Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶44

Oire CC to SRl.^T PRASANNA^{KUIMAR,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶45

One CC to SRl.^P GlRl^{KRISHNA,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210812024

ORDER CRLRC.No.320 of 2010

¶52

tHE S T4 r 6
(
e (+(
n
c() 1 B rl E C ? U 2I z
C
at
* I
oEsPAT C

¶53

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRL.RC

¶54

10
lt t,
U.
U
0 r"
10 Ir
,

Poloju Raju, Parkal [M], Warangal Dist. v. Singirkonda Ravinder, Karimnagar Dist., and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poloju Raju, Parkal [M], Warangal Dist. v. Singirkonda Ravinder, Karimnagar Dist., and Anr.

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

Smt. Naseem Begum and 5 Others Vs M/S Awagaman Road Carriers Ltd, Hyd and 4 Others

Kommineni Seetharamaiah, Vs Nalla NArasimha Rao

Ponnam Rambadram Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Abdul Sattar , Bablu Vs the Managing Director and Another

Jampala Urmila Vs Md.Azeemuddin and Anr.

Sanjay @ Manik Rao Vs Kurbuzay Neelakant Rao