Telangana High Court
CRLRC/1736/2005 of Kundurthi Girija Kumari, Vs Thotakura Ramesh, on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1736 OF 2005 DATED 28th DECEMBER, 2012. BETWEEN : K.Girija Kumari .. Petitioner-accused and 1) T.Ramesh 2) State of A.P. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1736 OF 2005 ORDER: Petitioner-accused
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1736 OF 2005DATED 28[th] DECEMBER, 2012.
BETWEEN :
K.Girija Kumari
.. Petitioner-accused
and
1) T.Ramesh
2) State of A.P.
..Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGOCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1736 OF 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Petitioner-accused filed this Criminal Revision Case by invokingthe provision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal ProcedureCode (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) being aggrieved by the judgment dated28.09.2005 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2003 by the IAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.
Initially, petitioner was prosecuted in C.C.No.19 of 2003 by theJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole, wherein videjudgment dated 28.03.2003 he was convicted under Section 255 (2)Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NegotiableInstruments Act (in short ‘N.I. Act’) and sentenced to undergo simpleimprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Challenging the same, accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.61 of2003.
While dismissing the said appeal, the learned Appellate Judgeconfirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, present revision has been preferred.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused theentire material on record.
Allegations against the accused are that he issued a cheque forRs.60,000/- to the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceabledebt and on presentation, the same was returned with an endorsement‘insufficient funds’. Further, even after receiving a legal notice also,accused failed to pay the amount covered under the said cheque.
This is a case where both the Courts below gave concurrentfindings against the accused by adducing reasons. Hence, this Courtis not inclined to interfere with the conviction imposed on the revisionpetitioner. However, considering the facts and circumstances of thecase, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and thecheque amount being only Rs.60,000/-, this Court is of the view that alenient view can be taken towards the petitioner in imposition ofsentence.
Hence, the conviction passed by the trial Court and confirmedby the appellate Court is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence ofimprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner is hereby set asideand the fine amount imposed on him by the trial Court of Rs.1,000/- isenhanced to Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) and thepetitioner shall pay the remaining fine amount before the trial Court onor before 30.03.2013. On such payment, the same shall be paid by thetrial Court to the complainant as compensation by invoking theprovision under Section 357 Cr.P.C. If the petitioner fails to pay thefine amount imposed by this Court on before the stipulated time, heshall suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
The remaining portion of the impugned judgment shall standunchanged.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall standclosed.
________________________
Date : 28.12.2012sur
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO