CASE NAME:

G. Yashwanth Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and Ors.

NAAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERBAD

BENCH OF THE COMPOSTION: M .SATYANARYANA MURTHY

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW

FACTS OF THE CASE : The petitioner filled under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the
proceedings inpending on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore
District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142(b) of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner/A1. The second respondent
filed complaint against the petitioner/A1 and another, alleging that on 26.10.2014, the
petitioner borrowed an amount of ` 15,00,000/- from her for his necessities and executed a
promissory note on the even date, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum
to her or her order on demand. Subsequently, on 02.11.2014 also, the petitioner borrowed an
amount of ` 15,00,000/- from the complainant for his necessities and executed another
promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. In view of the
demand made by the second respondent, A2, who is the father of A1, issued two cheques
bearing Nos. 320607 and 320608 on 11.03.2016 for a sum of ` 5,00,000/- each, drawn on
State Bank of India, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, in favour of the second respondent towards
discharge of the debt due by the petitioner as part payment under two promissory notes.

REASONING: held she is not liable , Under Section 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of
the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the present case, the appellant is not a drawer of the
cheque and she has not signed the same. A copy of the cheque brought to notice of Supreme
Court though contains name of the appellant and her husband, the fact remains that her
husband alone put his signature. In addition to the same, a bare reading of the complaint as
also the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the complainant and a bare look at the cheque
would show that the appellant has not signed the cheque. Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act,
in case of issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted
unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder.

CONCLUSION : under strict rule of interpretation, according sec 7 of the of the act "The
maker of a bill of exchange or cheque is called the 'drawer so here she cannot be regarded as
drawer and not held liable because she is not maker of the cheque.
CASE NAME C.S. Ravi Vs. M. Jaya and Ors.

NAME OF THE COURT : HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

BENCH OF COMPOSTION : M.SATYANARYANA MURTHY

SUBJECT : CRIMINAL LAW

FACTS OF THE CASE: The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to
recall P.W. 1 for further cross-examination alleging that the petitioner cross-examined P.W. 1
and the matter is coming for defence evidence, but on thorough verification, it came to the
notice that some questions on material points were not put to the respondent with regard to
the relationship of the respondent with the petitioner factory and also contended that there
were disputes between the petitioner factory and the respondent and it covered by Industrial
Disputes Act. It is also contended that there is no relationship of debtor and creditor and
question of issuing cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not
arise and to put certain questions, the witness has to be recalled and prayed to allow the
petition.

ISSUE : wheather trial court has to specify reason while dismissing the plea under first part
of section 311 of the cr.p.c?

REASONING :

In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shivkumar Yadav and another, the court had
given some guidelines when the power under Section 311 Cr.PC. can be exercised where The
trial Court as well as the High Court rejected the reasons for recall of the witnesses and The
Court has to keep in mind not only the need for giving fair opportunity to the accused but also
the need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not unduly harassed. On the base of
principal stated above in the present case, the trial Court did not record any reasons except
holding that the Court can take judicial notice of such facts. The order of the trial Court is
erroneous on the face of record and it is not inconsonance with the power conferred on the
Court under Section 311 Cr.PC. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be
set aside.

CONCLUSION: By interpreting the provision the power to receive evidence in exercise of

Section 311 of the Code could be exercised "even if evidence on both sides is closed” .The
only factor which should govern the Court in exercise of powers under Section 311 should be
whether such material is essential for the just decision of the case.
CASE NAME : Syed Irshad Hussain Vs. The State of A.P.

NAME OF THE COURT: High court of judicature, Hyderabad

BENCH OF COMPOSTION: M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

SUJECT: criminal law

FACTS: petitioners along with others were found transporting 440 Kgs of Ganja in 220
packets worth Rs. 22,00,000/- on Ashok Leyland Van bearing No. OD 30-3198 from
Balimela to Rajahmundry and during vehicle check, 220 packets of Ganja was found in the
body of the lorry in 22 bags in the middle of paddy bags. After following the necessary
procedure, police seized the contraband after drawing samples therefrom under the cover of
mediators report, arrested the accused and remanded them to judicial custody.

ISSUE: whether the petetioners who were following the truck in which ganja was found, will
entitled to get bail or not?

REASONING:

CONCLUSION