Telangana High Court
CRLP/4313/2010 of S. Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the dishonoured cheque was given by the
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULUCRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 OF 2010
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:
The petitioner is accused of offence punishable underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, theAct). The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that thedishonoured cheque was given by the accused as security forrunning account of supply of diesel and not towards settledamount of Rs.1,50,000/-, is a question of fact which this Courtmay not entertain in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Asper allegations in the complaint, the accused fell due to thetune of Rs.1,50,000/- and had drawn the dishonoured chequein favour of the complainant for discharge of the said amountdue.
It is contended that after receiving the notice, the accusedgave reply requesting the complainant for clarification withregard to the total amount due under the account and thatpending said clarification, the complainant filed the complaintin the lower Court. The complainant cannot afford to wait forgiving clarification and counter clarifications, because by thattime period of limitation for lodging the complaint may expire.So the complainant need not wait to finally clarify the matter sought for by the accused in his reply notice.
After receipt of dishonour memo, the complainant gotissued notice to the accused by registered post within thestipulated time and it was returned unserved withendorsement that the addressee is continuously eight daysabsent. As per the allegations in the complaint, the accusedintentionally evaded to receive the said legal notice withknowledge of all the contents of the notice. It is a matter fortrial whether the said issue of notice is sufficient compliance ofSection 138 (b) of the Act. By way of abundant caution, thecomplainant got issued another notice to the accused on18.02.2003 by way of registered post, certificate of posting aswell as courier service and the said notice was received bythe accused. It is contended that the second notice is beyond15 days prescribed time under the Act which was in force bythe date of that notice. Even though the second notice dated18.02.2003 is stated to be beyond period of limitation, the firstnotice is well within the period of limitation and it is for the trialCourt to decide whether it is valid service or not. There are nogrounds in this Criminal Petition to interfere with trial of thecase in the lower Court.
Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
December 29, 2011MD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 OF 2010
December 29, 2011
MD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDRABAD
Dated: 29.12.2011
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALAGOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 OF 2010
Between:
S. Srinivasulu
..... PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and another
....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following: