TATAVARTHI SANANDA KALESWARARAYA GUPTA Vs KOTHA RAJU
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000174-000174 / 2006
Diary number: 2945 / 2006
Advocates: ABHIJIT SENGUPTA Vs
Y. RAJA GOPALA RAO
Crl.A. No. 174 of 2006 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2006
TALAVARTHI SANANDA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
KOTHA RAJU & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2189 OF 2010
ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 707 OF 2006
O R D E R
1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 707 of 2006.
2. We have gone through the record. We see from the
findings recorded in O.S. No. 13 of 2001, the order of the
Senior Civil Judge, Bhimawaram on 12th April, 2004, that the
entire sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- representing the full amount
of the cheque had been deposited and paid to the
complainant though in instalments and that in the Civil
Suit aforesaid interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the
aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,03,000/- from the date of
promissory note to the date of the filing of the suit
tabulated at Rs. 79,170/- had also been decreed and this
decree has also been satisfied in the meanwhile. It is
Crl.A. No. 174 of 2006 2
apparent that the High Court's observations that a sum of
Rs. 65,000/- had not been paid which had led to the
conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to a fine of Rs.
5000/- and also an amount of the cheque representing twice
the amount of the cheque being Rs. 1, 60,000/- as
compensation was erroneous. We see from the perusal of the
civil suit that the amount of Rs. 65,500/- had in fact
been deposited in the Court on 17th August, 2001. In the
light of the fact that High Court's order is based on a
misconception as to the liability of the appellant, we feel
that the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation on the
appellant is wholly unjustified. We, accordingly, set
aside the High Court's order to this extent only. We,
accordingly, restore the order of the trial court with the
above modification. The appeals are dismissed in the above
terms.
........................... J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................... J
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
Crl.A. No. 174 of 2006 3
OCTOBER 27, 2010.