27 October 2010
Supreme Court
Download

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


1

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

2

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

3

Crl.A. No. 174 of 2006 3

OCTOBER 27, 2010.