IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V. VENUGOPAL
Sai Lakshmi Township Pvt. Ltd., Srikakulam District – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 (1) and 401 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.11.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.415 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge wherein and whereby the findings vide judgment dated 27.04.2016 in CC No.107 of 2014 on the file of the learned X Special Magistrate, Pioneer House, Erramanzil, Hyderabad were confirmed.
2. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.Rama Kotaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt.A.Padma, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
3. Since the 2nd respondent/complainant died during the course of proceedings, his legal representatives were brought on record as Respondent Nos.3 to 6 as per the orders dated 02.01.2023 in IA No.1 of 2022.
4. CC No.107 of 2014 is a case registered basing on the complaint of the 2nd respondent/complainant alleging that the 2nd petitioner, being the representative of the 1st petitioner firm, a real estate company, as its Managing Director,
The failure to issue a legal notice within the statutory period under Section 138 of the NI Act renders a complaint invalid, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
A cheque dishonor case under Section 138 requires proof of a legally enforceable debt and proper service of legal notice, both of which were lacking in this case.
Dishonour of cheque – By making a higher demand in a notice sent under Section 138(b) of N.I. Act, would not by itself invalidate notice provided, details of claim towards additional amounts are spec....
Point of law : Negotiable instruments - Though in the notice, the demand for compensation, interest, cost, etc. is also made, the drawer will be absolved from his liability under Section 138 of the N....
Dishonour of cheque – By making a higher demand in a notice sent under Section 138(b) of N.I. Act, would not by itself invalidate notice provided, details of claim towards additional amounts are spec....
A corporate entity and its directors are vicariously liable for dishonored cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act, with the presumption of liability shifting to the accused to prove otherwise.
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies on the accused to rebut the presumption of service of legal notice and that a cheque issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt constitutes a....
Dishonour of cheque – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal.
A cheque issued as security raises presumption of debt under Section 138 of the NI Act, which can be rebutted by proving no liability exists; concurrent civil proceedings do not preclude criminal act....
Legal enforceability of a debt requires proper adherence to the original agreement terms, including possession delivery, which if modified, undermines the claim under relevant statutory provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.