Dismissed

Nandulal Kori v. Nanda Kishore Ladda and Anr.

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024CRLRC/591/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cheque dishonour conviction under Section 138 NI Act confirmed by trial and appellate courts was challenged in revision. The High Court found no ground for interference with the concurrent findings but reduced the sentence to imprisonment already undergone, subject to payment of Rs.50,000 compensation within three months, failing which the original conviction stands.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nandulal Kori Vs Nanda Kishore Ladda and Anr. — 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.20-03-2013 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.919 of 2013 in Crl.R.C No.591 of 2013.

¶2

t^32ss l

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 591 OF 2013

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.pC against the Judgment dated 27.12.2012 made in Crl.A.No.135 of 2009 on the fite of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Khammam preferred against the Order dated 09.1'l .2009 made in C.C.No.214 of 2008 on the file of the Cou;t of the lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem Khammam District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Nandulal Kori, S/o.Kishanlal Kori, R/o.H.No.6-9-88/3A, Safaibasti, Kothagudem, Khammam Dist.

¶11

...Petitioner/Accused

¶12

AND

¶13

Nanda Kishore Ladda S/o.Harinarayana Rl/o.Ganesh Temple Area, Kothagudem Town, Khammam Dist.

¶14

The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.p., Hyderabad.

¶15

counset for the^petitioner : Sri s Madan Mohan *.;'

¶16

/Respondent "o-'t"tnant

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri K Rathanga Pani Reddy

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Vizarath Ali, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE N o, 59 1 0F 2013

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the^judgment dated 27.12.2012 in Crl.A.No.135 of 2009 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions (FTC), Khammam (for short,^"appellate Court") in confirming the^judgment dated 09.11.2009 in C.C.No.214 of 2008 on the file of learned III Additional Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem, Khammam District (for short,^"trial Court").

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent No. 1/complaina nt and executed^promissory note on 17.O2.2002 in his favour promising to repay the said amount with interest @ 24o/o p.a. Thereafter on persistent demands made by the respondent No.1/complainant, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.0426998 for Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.11.2004 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Kothagudem Branch. On presentation, the said cheque was returned for the reason "funds insufficient". Therefore, respondent No.1 issued the legal notice on 11.11.2004 to the petitioner and the petitioner received the same on 17.11.2004 but failed to pay the cheque amount. Therefore, respondent No.l fjle,d a

¶25

¶26

complaint against the^{petitionerunder Section138 of the Negotiable} Instruments Act^(for short,^"NI Act").

¶27

The trial Court vide^judgment dated 09.11.2009ⁱⁿ C.C.No.214 of 2008 convicted the^petitioner for the^offenceunder Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to^{undergosimple} imprisonment for a^period of six⁽⁶⁾ months and to^pay fine^of Rs.5,000/-. In default to suffer simple imprisonment for a^{period of} one (1) month only. Aggrieved thereby, the^{petitioner preferredan} Appeal.

¶28

The appellate Court vide^judgment dated 27.12.2012 in Crl.A.No.135 of 2009 dismissed the appeal confirming^{the judgment} passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.

¶29

The trial Court, on behalf of respondent No.1 examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of defence,^DW.1 was examined and no document was marked. The trial^Court observed that^PW. t has issued^{Ex. P4 notice which was served under} Ex.P5, so the mandatory^provision was applied by Pw.1.^{When once} the accused has denied the signature on Ex.P5 acknowledgment,^the burden of onus shifts to the accused to establish that^the signature on Ex.Ps does not belong to him. But the accused^{has failedto} discharge his burden in establishing that the signature on^Ex.P5 does not beleogL-to him. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of

¶30

¶31

the case, nature of the offence and the admission of^DW.1 in^his cross examination that he has issued Ex.P1 and P6^{in favour} of^PW.1 with his signature there on, PW.1 has established the case against the accused. The accused has committed the otfence^punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act as it was issued to him without providing any fund in the bank for discharge of legally enforceable debt under Ex.P6. Hence, the trial Court was of the opinion^that PW.1 has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable dou bt.

¶32

Heard Mr. S.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K. Ratanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Vizarath AIi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2/State. Perused the record.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record in^{proper perspective} and convicted the revision petitioner. Therefore, seeks to allow the Revision.

¶34

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court after careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record rightly passed the respective^judgments and the interference

¶35

¶36

oF this Court, at this stage is unwarranted. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision.

¶37

A perusal of record shows that this Court vide order dated 20.03.2013 suspended the sentence imposed against the petitioner and enlarged him on bail on executing a bond for an amount of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties each of like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶38

In the present case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section.l38 of N.I.Act, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional^jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

¶39

Therefore, upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence available on record in right perspective and have come to just conclusion that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and that finding need not be interfered.

¶40

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon considering the Fact that the petitione r/accused suffered mental agony by roaming around trial

¶41

¶42

Court as well as appellate Court, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view by reducing sentence imposed on the^petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him

¶43

The petitioner/accused is directed to^pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of which Rs.45,000/- to be paid to the respondent No.1/defacto-complainant and balance Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the State within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon such deposit, the defacto complainant is directed to withdraw the same with immediate effect.

¶44

In default, the judgment 09.11.2009 in C.C.No.214 of 2008 on the file of learned III Additional Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem stands good in all respects.

¶45

With the above direction, the Crimina{ Revision Case is dismissed.

¶46

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶47

sD/- B SATYAVimH|.- ,/ DEPUW REGISTRAR:

//TRUE COPY//

,L_-1

SECTIONbFFICER

To,

'1. The lV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Khammam 2. The lll Additionar Judiciar Magistraie of 'First crass, Kothagudem Khammam District

¶53

Two ccs to the^pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶54

One CC to Sri S Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

One CC to Sri K Rathanga pani Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Cooies

¶56

:f -n.- Srr.rq^ia""1, O&ti'.(c'f S"rtl, FV'q"v,-^o .

ADK

\q_-

HIGH COURT

DATED:18103t2024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.S91 ot 2013

I
o R THE S 14
U (
t
19 JUt't 2024
o
i
t
PATCHEO *

¶64

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶65

to^ceg(eA W ,a6fu

Nandulal Kori v. Nanda Kishore Ladda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nandulal Kori v. Nanda Kishore Ladda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Sulthana Begum Vs Guguloth Sakunthala

Smt K.Kavitha, Secunderabad and Anr., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

G.Krishnamurthy, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Chennaram Niranjan Reddy , Raghavender Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Dubbaka Venkataiah Vs the State of A.P.

Smt P.Swarna Latha Vs Smt Chandrakala and Another