Partly allowed

Mohd.Abdul Hannan v. D.Uday Anand

Telangana HC14 Mar 2024CRLRC/841/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act where conviction was confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court declined to compound the offence for want of complainant representation but modified the sentence to time already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs.6,000.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine increased to Rs.6,000 payable on the file of the trial Court within two months; revision otherwise dismissed.

Mohd.Abdul Hannan Vs D.Uday Anand — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THEFOURTEENTHDAYOF MARCH}

¶4

TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEE.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISIO^{N CASE NO:841oF 2012}

¶8

Criminal Revision^{Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC against} theJudgmentdtoT-o6-2ol2passedinCrl.ANo.SSof2ollonthefileofthecourt oftheSpecialJudgeforEconomicOffences+um-VlllAddl'M'SJ''atHyderabad confirmingtheJudgmentdlo4.o2.2ollpassedinCCNo.556of200Sonthefileof the court of^{the ll Additional C.M'M', Hyderabad'}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mohd.Abdul Hannan,^{S/o A.B.M',Muzammelocc Business R/o H'No4'1'871' Tiiak} Road' Hyderabad

¶11

...pETlrloNER/APPELLANT'AccusED

¶12

AND

¶13

D.Uday Anand,^{S/o D.Ramesh occ Business R/o H'No'5-5-807'Hindi Nagar'} Near Ghoshamahal^HYderabad

¶14

z. ine siate^{or ne., nep-uy its F,bti" pt""*tor HighCourtof AP" Flvderabad}

¶15

RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶16

: SRI PADMALATHA^{YADAV(AmicusCuri€a)} Counsel for the^Petitioner Counsel for the^ResPondentl I none : ASST PUBLIC^PROSECUTOR Counsel for^{the ResPondent'2}

¶17

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶18

¶19

,/ f

¶20

THE HOI['BLE SRI JUSTTCE E.V.VENUCTO PAI CRIIIIITAL N CASE lto.841 of 20L2

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Rerrision Case is liled by the revision petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.06.2012 in Crl.A.No.8S of 2011 passed by learned Special Judge for Economic offences-cum-vlll Additionar Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court"), confirming the judgment dated O4.O2.2O11 in C.C.No.SS of 2OOg passed by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr. Khaja vizatath Ali, learned Assistalt public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2_State. perused the record.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,65,000/_ (Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand only) from respondent No. 1/complainant on l2.l}.2OOZ to meet his family

¶25

¶26

n€cessities and executed a pro-note on the same day to that effect in favour of respondent No. l/complainant, promising to repay the same within four (4) months. On repeated demands to repay the said amount, when the cheque bearing No.282301 dated,2Z.O3.2O0g for a sum of Rs. 1,65,O00/- issued by the petitioner/accused, was presented for payment, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds". Respondent No. 1/complainant got issued a legal notice to the petitioner/accused demanding to pay the cheque amount, for which revision petitioner/accused failed to pay the amount. After waiting for the statutory period, a complaint has been lodged by respondent No. l/complainant in C.C.No.556 of 2OOa against revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act") and the same was allowed by the learned II Additional Chief Metropotitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide Judgment dated 04.O2.2Otl convicting the revision petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.S,O0O/_ (Rupees live thousand only), in default of payment of line to

¶27

¶28

¶29

undergo a simple imprisonment of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused has preferred an appeal and the sarne was dismissed vide Judgment dated O7.O.2O|2 in Crl.A.No.8S of 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused has frled the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶30

Before the trial Court, the respondent No.l/complainant was examined as P.W. 1 ald marked Exs-Pl to P7. The incriminating material in the complainant's erridence was put to notice of the accused by examining him under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the same was denied and examined himself as D.W. 1.

¶31

The learned trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentar5r, arrived at a conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and, as such, convicted the revision petitioner/ accused for the offence punishable under

¶32

¶33

¶34

Section i3B of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a line of Rs.5,000/_ (Rupees five thousand only), in default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner/accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶35

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the peutioner preferred Crl.A.No.8S of 2Oll on the frle of the Court of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences_cum_Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, and the appellate Court after re_appreciating the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated OZ.O6.2OL2 in Crl.A.No.8S of 2Oll. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has fiIed the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶36

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that during the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, it has been informed by the revision

I / '/

It,

petitioner/accused to the learned counsel, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae that the revision petitioner/accused has paid a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/towards full and final settlement in the matter pending before this Court and the consistent efforts made by the revision petitioner/accused to make the respondentI /complainant present before this Court to record the compromise gone in vain and the revision petitioner has already suffered the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and he was confined in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad for few days and suffered sentence passed by the learned trial Court in C.C.No.556 of 2OO8 dated O4.O2.2O11, against which appeal was also dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

¶43

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused further submitted that the revision petitioner/accused was conyicted and suffered sentence for few days and enlarged on bail upon granting bail by this Court. Hence, seeks a lenient view in this matter and compound the offence and record the compromise.

¶44

¶45

Therefore, upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentar5r evidence available on record, both the courts below have appreciated the erridence on record in right perspective and have come to a just conclusion that the accused has not committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and the said finding of both the Courts below need no interference. In view of the above, this Court does not frnd any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court.

¶46

¶47

lO. In the absence of representation on behalf of unoflicial respondent, this Court is not inclined to compound the offence. However, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioner/accused suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as twelve long years have already been elapsed from the date of frling of this Revision, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and while conlirming the conrriction against petitioner/ accused for the offences

{

punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, modify the sentence imposed by the appellate Court to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/ accused.

¶52

In the result, while confirming ttre conviction against the revision petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.l Act, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner/accused by the appellate Court is modilied reducing the same to that of the period, already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused. However, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court, which has been confirmed by the appellate Court is increased to a sum of Rs.6,OO0/(Rupees six thousand only), which has to be paid on the hle of trial Court within two months in default to suffer the judgment passed by the learned trial below. Except the above said modifrcation, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed.

¶53

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall also stand dismissed.

¶55

SD/- B SAWAVATH], DEPUW^REGISTRAR.

¶56

,,TRUE COPY,,

¶57

sEc OFFICER

¶58

To, l.TheSpecialJudgeforEconomicoffences-cum-VlllAdditionalMetropolitan Sessions Judge'^{at HYderabad'} 2. i;;CC.^{io tlie puuti6 pr*.",tot,HighCourt for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT] g. oile ct to snt^phounurHA YADAV^{(Amicus Curiea)' Advocate[oPUc]} ;. o;; cc^{io snrA RAVISHANKER, Advocate[oPUC]} 5. Two CD^CoPies TL $r-

HIGH COURT

DATED:14/0312024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.841 ot 2012

,a- ;1=14
,/,. J
/ -:'
2) P <br>i/-/ \St<br>\., ,l
o (a
<br>,i,
lJ 9 itt +

¶64

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL R.C.

¶65

WTH MODIFICATIONS

¶66

g6f

Mohd.Abdul Hannan v. D.Uday Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Abdul Hannan v. D.Uday Anand

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.Pratapagiri Padmalatha, Karimnagar and Anr., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

Gunja Chinna Yellaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Gandikota Pedda Narsimulu, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

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

M/s. Pnr Industries, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by the Principal Secretary to

B.Buchaiah, Yousufguda, Hyd., Vs the State of Ap., Rep. Pp., and Anr.