“Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case: ‘No Grounds to Interfere with the Judgment'”

Share:
property property bail Driving elections dna 139 N.I. Act High Court Not the ‘Court’ for Arbitration Extensions under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act:  Andhra Pradesh High Court Call state Notice High Court Documents Physical Government Teacher's Accident Evidence Property Dispute Amendment Sale Agreement Police Collector investigationsTrafficking Domestic Violence Bicycle injury Cheque conviction dowry sale property payment

In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu, dismissed a Criminal Revision Case challenging a previous conviction in a cheque bounce matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case, filed against Puvvada Venkata Krishna Murthy, saw the High Court confirm the judgment passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

The case (Criminal Revision Case No: 657 of 2010) was decided on 22nd February 2024, where the court stated, “Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and considering the material on record, absolutely, the judgment…cannot be said to be illegal and irregular.”

The dispute centered around a cheque of Rs. 66,000, which was issued by the accused, Puvvada Venkata Krishna Murthy, and subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. The cheque was initially given in repayment of a loan of Rs. 50,000 with interest. Upon dishonor, the complainant pursued legal action, leading to Murthy’s conviction in the lower courts.

Justice Babu, in his ruling, noted, “The evidence on record proves the factum of existence of a legally enforceable debt against the accused.” This statement came after a detailed examination of the evidence presented, including the cheque, bank memos, and testimonies.

One of the critical arguments made by the defense was the issuance of a cheque return memo on a non-banking day (Sunday). The court addressed this by stating, “The complainant has no necessity to fabricate Ex.P.7…There was also a possibility for making the date as 26.10.2003 by the bank authorities mistakenly.”

The High Court’s decision reinforces the legal responsibilities inherent in issuing cheques and the serious consequences of their dishonor. This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding the sanctity of financial transactions and the implications of the Negotiable Instruments Act in financial disputes. The court’s directive to the lower court to carry out the sentence against Murthy further cements the gravity of the offense.

Date of Decision : 22-02-2024

PUVVADA VENKATA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. THE STATE OF A.P

Download Judgment

Share: