R.Vijaya Laxmi, Hyderabad., v. The Staate Of Telangana, Rep Pp And ANR.,
BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated. 30-03-2017 in CRLRC,MP. NO: 1380 OF 2017 in Cd.R.C No.851 of 2017.
[ 32e9 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL EVISION CASE NO: 8 5'.1 oF 2017 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.PC against the Judoment dated 8-3-2017 made in Crl.A. No. 649 OF 2015 on the file of the court of-the V - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district q! LB.Nagar, Ranga Reddy preferred against the Order passed in C,C. No.24 OF 2014 dated 14-7-2015 bn the file of the Court of the lll - Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, at L.B. Nagar.
Between:
R.Vijaya Laxmi, W/o.B.Bhujanga Rao, fge 55 Yrs, Occ House Wife, R/o. H.N6 ai-13-8/ 1, Ivladhura nagar Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ..,REVISION PETITIONERYAPPELLANT/ACCUSED AND The State of Telangana, Represented through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderbad, ,..RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Maddi Narender Reddy @ Sridhar Reddy, S/o.Ranichandra Reddy, Age 42 Years,Occ Business, Ryol Thattiannarani (V),Hayath Nagar (M), Ranga Reddy district.
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP. NO: 1 0 0F 2017) Petition under Section 482 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend judgment dt:8-3-2017 passed in Crl. AP. No. 649 OF 2015 on the file the V - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy during the pendency of the Criminal Revision Case and pass such other order or orders as this Court deem fit in the interest ofjustice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. V BALRAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI.MALIPEDOI SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER
I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VETTUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.851 OF 2OI7 ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.649 of 2015 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in dismissing the Criminal Appeal by confirming judgment dated 14.07.2015 in C.C.No.24 of 2Ol4 on the file of the learned III Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District (for short, "the trial Court"). 2.
Heard Mr. M. Shanker, learned counsel representing Mr. V. Balaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vizarath AIi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State and Mr. Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3.
The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2-de facto complainant advanced an amount of Rs.9 lakhs to the petitioneraccused for her urgent family necessities and the petitioner executed a promissory note viz., Ex Pl . On demand, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.162348 dated 28.06.2013
drawn on Andhra Bank, Srinivasapurarn Branch, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad to discharge the legally enforceable debt. The said cheque was dishonoured for 'insufficiency of funds' in her account. Thereby, respondent No.2 filed C.C.24 of 2014 before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "N.1. Act").
4. The trial Court vide judgment dated 14.07.2015 in C.C.No.24 of 2Ol4 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and directed the petitioner to pay or deposit a compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- within one month from the date of the judgment in default, to pay or deposit the compensation, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. The total compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- was directed to be paid a-fter the appeal period.
5.
Aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 08.03.2017 ln Crl.A.No.649 of 2015 dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment passed b-v the trial Court. Hence, the present Revision. 6.
When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner by filing a memo dated 05.10.2023 submitted that
l the cheque in question was issued for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and the petitioner was ready and willing to pay double the amount of cheque. He further stated that the petitioner was an aged and ailing patient. She underwent liver transplantation, at Medanta Medicity Hospital, Goargoan, at Delhi and she is a-lmost in a bed-ridden condition. Learned counsel also filed a copy of the Discharge Summar5r of the petitioner. Therefore, seeks to take a lenient view and set aside the impugned judgment.
7.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on. record, the appellate Court rightly passed the impugned judgment. Learned counsel further submitted that by virtue of the order dated 3O.03.2017 passed by this Court, the matter is being protracted on one pretext or the other causing huge financial loss to t!;re de facto complainant apart from mental agony. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision. 8.
A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 30.03.2017 suspended the sentence of imprisonment only, subject to execution of self-bond for a sum of Rs.1O,0OO / - with \!..
two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned
.l Magistrate concerned. So far as the compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- which includes the fine amount, is concerned, it is subject to payment/deposit of ll4th of the said amount, on or before six weeks from today, before the trial Court, failing which the trial Court can levy and enforce for its recovery under Section 421 r /w Section 431 of Cr.P.C.
9.
Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon taking into consideration, the decision of the Apex Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehtal this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit double the amount of cheque to the credit of the trial Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.
10. In default of payment of the said amount, the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed in Cr1.A.No.649 of 2015 stands good in all respects.
1 1. Upon depositing the said amount, respondent No.2 complainant rs granted liberty to withdraw the same with immediate effect.
I (2018) I Supreme Cour.t Cases 560
12. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- C.H. VENKATESWA DEPUTY REGIS LU, I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The V - Additional Metroooljtan Sessrons Judge, Ranga Reddy district at LB,Nagar, Ranga Reddv Il'," jll - Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, AT L.B. Naoar r ne supeflntendent, Central prison, Cherlaoallv 9T gg t? slr y BALRAM, Advocate [onrlel'
Iwo CCs to the public prosecutor, Hign Courtior the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRt. MAL|pEDDt SRtN|VAS REDDy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies \.F ADK e b.
7.
HIGH COURT DATED:1011012023 1 (4 r o .$ y t
ORDER
,S., \:'v IL uoIL CRLRC.No.851 ot 2017 \ {,, * J # DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC