Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shaik Abdul Mazid vs M/S. Godavari Fertilizers ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 569 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 569 Tel
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2023

Telangana High Court
Shaik Abdul Mazid vs M/S. Godavari Fertilizers ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1280 of 2009

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment

and decree passed by the learned III-Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.96 of 2009 dated

27.07.2009 in confirming the Judgment and decree passed by

the learned X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Secunderabad in C.C.No.684 of 2004 dated 23.03.2009.

2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, there is no

representation on behalf of the learned Counsel for the revision

petitioner and he did not evince any interest in continuing the

revision. Perusal of the record shows that plaintiff gave

complaint against accused under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act stating that accused is the Proprietor and

owner of M/s. Sri Salamath Rythu Centre at Udayagiri and he

was appointed as dealer of the complainant company to sell

fertilizer products. The accused used to make purchases by

placing orders from time to time under various invoices on

credit basis. When he asked to clear the outstanding dues on

31.10.2003, he executed an undertaking that he will pay

demand amount in installments and he also issued two cheques

one dated 13.05.2004 for Rs.28,37,726/- and another dated

18.05.2004 for Rs.20,00,000/- and both cheques were drawn by

him at Andhra Bank, Stonehousepet Branch, Nellore. When

they were present, the same were dishonored with an

endorsement "Insufficient Funds", as such statutory notice was

issued but the accused did not responded, as such complainant

filed complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act.

3. Complainant was examined as P.W.1. He also examined

another witness P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 on his behalf.

Accused did not examine anyone on his behalf.

4. The trial Court considering the evidence on record, found

accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act and

also convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and

also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine

amount, he has to suffer S.I for a period of 15 days. Against

which the accused preferred an appeal, but the appellate Court

by Judgment dated 27.07.2009 dismissed the same confirming

the Judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the

present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

5. The appellant mainly contended that complaint is not

maintainable as the General Power of Attorney Holder is not

competent to prosecute the case. The Ex.P6 i.e, Statement of

Account is a computer generated copy admissible in evidence

and hit by Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no

evidence on record to show that it was legally enforceable debt.

He further stated that Ex.P6 is not maintainable during the

regular course of business. Ex.P9 and Ex.P13 Cheques were

tampered and thus hit by Section 87 of the N.I Act. There is a

material alternation in the account, as such they are

invalidated. The evidence of P.W.2 cannot be relied upon as his

evidence was brought into existence to fill up the lacunae. He

also stated there is no evidence that Murugappa Group of

Companies are taken over by the Godavari Fertilizers and

Chemicals Ltd., and there is no proper service of notice as

contemplated under Section 138 of N.I Act and requested the

Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court, but the

appellate Court considering all aspects confirmed the Judgment

of the trial Court.

6. This Court finds no infirmity in the Judgment of the

appellate Court in Crl.A.No.96 of 2009 dated 27.07.2009,

confirming the Judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.684 of

2004 dated 23.03.2009 and thus the present Criminal Revision

Case is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

DATED: 03.02.2023 tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1280 of 2009

DATED: 03.02.2023

TRI

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter