Bolla Srinivasa Reddy, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 666 Tel

Telangana High Court

Bolla Srinivasa Reddy, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., And ... on 16 February, 2024

                                       1




          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                CRIMINAL REVISION CASENo.1134 OF 2011

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and

401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 13.05.2011 passed

in Crl.A.No.06 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short 'the appellate

Court').

2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-State and perused the record.

4. This Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of

the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani

Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1", wherein it was

categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal

for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.

(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720

5. The brief facts of the case are that revision petitioner/accused

borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent No.2 herein for

his urgent family necessities in the month of September 2003 and

agreed to repay the same with an interest at the rate of 24% per

annum and also executed a promissory note to that effect. In spite

of several demands made by the petitioner for repayment of the

said amount, respondent No.2 failed to repay the same and finally

issued a cheque bearing No.024048 dated 11.09.2004 for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Khamman

Branch towards repayment. The petitioner had issued a legal notice

dated 11.10.2004 to respondent No.2 with a demand to pay the

cheque amount. However, respondent No.2 did not choose to pay

the cheque amount or to give any reply, which resulted in filing of

this complaint after complying with all the requirements under

Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent-State would submit that the learned appellate Court

after appreciating the material facts before it has passed the order.

Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted.

Hence seeks to dismiss the present criminal revision case.

7. Recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the entire material available

on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well

reasoned order passed by the appellate Court. Therefore, this Court

is not inclined to entertain the present Criminal Revision Case.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 16.02.2024 mmr