Back
G. SRIDEVI
B. Sunder – Appellant
Versus
State of AP Rep By Its PP Hyd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment, dated 13.09.2007, passed in Crl.A.No.25 of 2006, wherein the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, N.T.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, confirmed the judgment, dated 27.02.2006, passed in C.C.No.1886 of 2005 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur.
2. The facts of the case are as under:
3. The 2nd respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the revision petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from him on 26.08.1999 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same within one week from the date of demand made by the 2nd respondent/complainant. On repeated demands made by the 2nd respondent/complainant, the revision petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.164596, dated 05.07.2002 for Rs.1,81,400/.- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Ramachandrapuram towards repayment of the said debt and when the same w
None of the case laws listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based on the provided description. The sole case law provided Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. VS Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. - 2001 1 Supreme 311 does not contain any language or references suggesting negative treatment or judicial disapproval in subsequent rulings.
[Followed / Affirmed]
The case law emphasizes important legal points regarding notices of dishonor and the timing of filing complaints, which suggests it remains relevant and authoritative. There is no indication that this case has been challenged or disapproved in subsequent decisions.
[Uncertain / No clear treatment]
Since the provided case law does not include references to subsequent treatment, it cannot be definitively categorized under "followed" or "overruled." It remains an authoritative precedent unless contradicted elsewhere, which is not indicated here.
None. The treatment of the case law is unclear due to lack of information about subsequent judicial treatment or citations that would suggest overruling or disapproval.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
