Korpol Rakesh Reddy v. Muddam Ravichandra Reddy
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K.SURENDER
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-30. Korpol Rakesh Reddy v. Muddam Ravichandra Reddy. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3251 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos: 200 AND 202 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 200 OF 2018 Appeal filed under Section 378(a) of Cr P C. , against the Judgment dated 31 . 07. 2015 passed in C. C No 439 of 2013 on the file of the court of the I Special tVlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram. Between: Korpol Rakesh Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 10- 19/19, Sridhar Colony Jitlelguda, Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT AND '1 . ll/uddam Ravichandra Reddy, S/o. Dayanand Reddy, Rio. H. No. 17-1- 383/4/43, Vijaynagar Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad- 500059. ... RESPONDENT/ACCUSED 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. , by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad ,..
RESPODENTS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 202 OF 2018 Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr. P. C. , against the Judgment dated 30. 05. 2015 passed in C C No. 93 of 20'15 on the file of the court of the I Special Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram. Between: Korpoal Rakesh Reddy, 9o. Chandra . 10_19/. 19, Reddy, Rio. H. No. Sridhar -' """' Colony, Jillelguda Vitlaje, saroornagar Mandai,Hanga RedOy Oi. iri"i ... APPELLANT/COMPLATNANT AND 1. Muddam Ravichandra Reddy, S/o. Dayanand Reddy, R/o. H. No. 17- 1 t393lN43. Vinayanagar Coiony, Saidibad, Hyderatiad. ... RESPONDENT/ACCUSED 2. The State of-Telangana, R9g pV public prosecutor, its High Court at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and Andhra praOeih ffyO"raO"a. ... RESPODENTS Counsel for the Appellants in both cases : Sri Basety Karthik Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in both cases : Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri Counsel for the Respondent No.
2 in both cases : Sri M Vivekanda Reddy Assistant public prosecutor The Court delivered the following: ,// /" THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2OO AND 02 0F 2018 COMMON UDGMENT: Criminal Appeal Nos. 200 and 202 of 2018 are filed by the I I appellant questioning the judgments dated 31. 07. 2015 and t 30. 05. 2016 passed in C. C. Nos. 439 of 2013 and 93 of 2015 I respectively by the learned I Special Magistrate at I Hasthinapuram, R. R. District, wherein the respondent No. 1/accused was found not guilty for the oFFence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1BB1 (for short'the NI Act, 1BB1'). 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is one and the same, hence, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. 3. During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as PW. l and marked Exs. P1 to P5 in C. C. No. 439 of 2013 and Exs. Pl to P16 in C. C. No. 93 of 2015 respectively.
On the other hand, on behalf of the defence, Ex. D. l was marked in C. C. 439 of 2013 and Exs. D1 to D4 were marked in C. C. No. 93 of 2015. 4. The learned trial Court found the respondent No. l-accused not guilty as no offence was made out against him and in support of tl'e same, gave various reasons. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant submits that the reasons given by the learned Magistrate are incorrect. However, upon reviewing the record, it is evident that the cheques in question were lssued by M/s. Sri Uma Maheshwara Paper Private Limited (Company), signed by the respondent No. 1-accused, in the capacity of Managing Director of the said Rice Mill. Nonetheless, the Company was not shown as an accused in the complaint. 6. Under Section 141 of the NI Act, 1881, when an offence is committed by a Company, the Company or the person responsible l'or the day-to-day affairs of the Company would be liable for prosecution.
The persons responsible would be made vicariously liable on behalf of the Company. Unless the Company itself is shown as an accused, the prosecution case against any person, who is incharge of the Company, cannot be maintained. Therefore, due to the failure on the part of the appellant to include the Company as a party/accused to the criminal proceedings before the Court below, the complaint ,/-, 3 ,/ under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall sta dismissed. Sd/- I. NAGA SHMI DEPUTY RE STRAR //TRUE COPY// \ / SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The I Special [Vlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram. (With records) 2. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 3. One CC to Sri Basety Karthik, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies DL/gh vt J I I HIGH COURT DATED:,3O11212024 ar'{,1r ?.
o ( I ) 5 I I 3 28 FEB 2M5 t COMMON JUDGMI. :NT CRLA. Nos. 200 ANI) 202 ot 20'18 t 0E o . SPA'TcB DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS e '. -\,AA ,/\L\ $'
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.