Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

"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