Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

 

Latest Legal News