Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2006 · The High Court · 2025

NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated O4-02-2OO8 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.'197 of 2008 in Crl.R.C No.135 of 2008. Criminal Revision Case No.135 of 2008 Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC aggrieved by the Judgmenl daled 31-12-2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, preferred against the judgment dated 14-02-2006 in C.C.No.991 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between:

1. Ramesh Jaichand Shah, S/o Late Jaichand Shah, Age:6i years, Occ:Business Ri/o C/o Jignesh Pharma, 12122, Boanji Mastan Road, 16, Gandhi Mansion, 1"t Floor, Opp. Kalbadevi Post Office, Mumbail (Died) ...Revision Petitioner/Accused 2. Jignesh R Shah, S/o Late Jaichand Shah, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.16, 2nd Floor, Swadhin Sadan, 'C' Road, Church Gate, Mumbai - 400 020. (Son and LR of the accused as well as affected party) 2nd Revisi on perition er is i m preaded r" ;;: 3ff;""1# [::f t#r:i8L"li; Cr|RCMP.No.80 of 2015 AND 1 Swathi Drug Agencies Private Limited, Regd. Office 409, Vijaya Sree Apartments, Opp, Kamma Sangham, Ameerpet, Srinagar Colony post, Hyderabad, rep. by its Director & Authorised Signatory Sri A.V.Prasad. 2 rhe state or Andhra pradesh, rhroush its ,r0,," ;;5.XT*'#i,lr'r"3['JTi'" A.P., Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. Priyanka, representing Mr. G. Narender Raj Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 04-02-2008 in Crt.R.C.M.p.No.198 of 2008 in Cil.R.C No.136 of 2008. Criminal Revision Case No.136 of 2008 Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrpC aggrieved by the Judgment dated 31-12-2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.101 of ZbO6 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, preferred against the judgment daled 14-02-2006 in CC.No.1189 of 2001 on the file of lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between:

1. Ramesh Jaichand Shah, S/o Late Jaichand Shah, Age:61 years, Occ:Business R:/o C/o Jignesh Pharm a, 12122, Boanji Mastan Road, 16, Gandhi lrilansion, 1"t Floor, Opp. Kalbadevi Post Office, Mumbail (Died) ...Revision Petitioner/Accused 2. Jignesh R Shah, S/o Late Jaichand Shah, Occ: Business, R:/o Flat No.16,2nd Floor, Swadhin Sadan, 'C' Road, Church Gate, Mumbai - 400 020. (Son and LR of the accused as well as affected party) ...Proposed 2nd Revision Petitioner 2nd Revision Petitioner is impleaded as per Court order dated 08-02-2023 in CrlRCMP.No.8l of 2015 AND

1. Swathi Drug Agencies Private Limited, Regd. Office 409, Vijaya Sree Apartments, Opp. Kamma Sangham, Ameerpet, Srinagar Colony Post, Hyderabad, rep. by its Director & Authorised Signatory Sri A.V. Prasad.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of ...RespondenUComplainant A.P., Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. Priyanka, representing Mr. G. Narender Raj Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated O4-O2-2OO8 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.199 of 2008 in Crl.R.C No.137 of 2008. Criminal Revision Case No.137 of 2008 Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC aggrieved by the Judgment dated 31-12-2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Metropolitan . Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, preferred against the judgment daled 14-02-2006 in CC.No.1351 of 2001 on the file of lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, H.yderabad. Between:

1. Ramesh Jaichand Shah, S/o Late Jaichand Shah, Age:61 years, Occ:Business Rl/o C/o Jignesh Pharma, 12122, Boanji Mastan Road, 16, Gandhi Mansion, 1't Floor, Opp. Kalbadevi Post Office, Mumbail (Died) ...Revision Petitioner/Accused

2. Jignesh R Shah, S/o Late Jaichand Shah, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.16, 2nd Floor, Swadhin Sadan, 'C' Road, Church Gate, Mumbai - 400 020. (Son and LR of the accused as well as affected party) ...Proposed 2nd Revision Petitioner 2nd Revision Petitioner is impleaded as per Court order dated 08-02-2023 in CdRCIv1P.No.82 of 2015 AND

1. Swathi Drug Agencies Private Limited, Regd Office 409, Vijaya Sree Apartments, Opp. Kamma Sangham, Ameerpet, Srinagar Colony Post, Hyderabad, rep. by its Director & Authorised Signatory Sri A.V.Prasad.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of ...RespondenUComplainant A.P., Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. Priyanka, representing Mr. G. Narender Raj Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 04-02-2008 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.200 of 2008 in Crl.R.C No.'138 of 2008. Criminal Revision Case No.138 of 2008 Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 & 4O1 of CrPC aggrieved by the Judgment dated 31-12-2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, preferred against the.judgment daled 14-02-2006 in CC.No.1352 of 2001 on the file of lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between:

1. Ramesh Jaichand Shah, S/o Late Jaichand Shah, Age:61 years, Occ:Business R/o C/o Jignesh Pharma, 12122, Boanji Mastan Road, 16, Gandhi Mansion, 1't Floor, Opp. Kalbadevi Post Office, Mumbail (Died) ...Revision Petitioner/Accused 2. Jignesh R Shah, S/o Late Jaichand Shah, Occ: Business, Rt/o Flat No.16, 2nd Floor, Swadhin Sadan, 'C' Road, Church Gate, Ivlumbai - 400 020. (Son and LR of the accused as well as affected party) ...Proposed 2nd Revision Petitioner 2nd Revision Petitioner is impleaded as per Court order dated O8-O2-2O23 in CrlRCIvlP.No.S3 of 201 5 AND 1 . Swathi Drug Agencies Private Limited, Regd. Office 409, Vijaya Sree Apartments, Opp. Kamma Sangham, Ameerpet, Srinagar Colony Post, Hyderabad, rep. by its Director & Authorised Signatory Sri A.V. Prasad.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of ...RespondenUComplainant A.P., Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. Priyanka, representing Mr. G. Narender Raj- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.134. 135. 136. 137 and 138 0F 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these Revision C:rses is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

9.. Criminal Revision Case Nos.134, 135, 136, i37 and 138 of 2OOB are filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 3),.t2.2OO7 tn Criminal Appeal Nos.97, 1OO, 1O l, 99 atd /B of 2006 respecrively on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions ./ Judge, at Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court,,) confirming the judgment dated 14.02.2006 in C.C.Nos.13S0, 99 1, ttg9, 1351 and 1352 of 2001 respectively on the hle of the learned III Additional Chiel Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Priyanka, learned counsel representing Mr.G.Narender Raj, learned counsel for responclent No.1 and Mr{.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2-State. Per:used the record. l 2 For the sake of convenience, the facts in Crl.R.C.No.134 of 2OO8 are discussed as hereunder:- 3, The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/complainant company is involved in the business of supplying chemicals to M/s.Herren Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited, Jeedimefla, Hyderabad on credit basis (for short, "HDPL"). It is stated that petitioner No.1 purchased different bulk drrgs from the said HDPL on credit basis; that while supplying material, HDPL instructed the accused to pay the amounts mentioned in Exs.P3 to Pl2 to the complainant. The accused acknowledged the debt due to the complainant to a tune of Rs.17,98,478 l- and send demand draft of Rs.70,OOO/-. Further, the accused issued Ex Pl5/cheque bearing No.158773 dated A.Oa.2OOl, Ex P16/cheque bearing No.158774, dated

16.O8.20O1 drawn on Punj ab & Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Limited, Port Branch, Mumbai to the complainant' On presentation, the said cheques returned dish.onoured for the reason "exceeds arrangement'; then the complainant issued legal notice to the accused. The accused received the said notice but failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated time' 3 Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act

4. It is pertinent to note here that petitioner No. I had died during the pendency of this Case. Therefore, petitioner No.2/son of petitioner No.1 is impleaded as party to this vide order dated

08.O2.2023 passed by this Court

5. The tria-l Court vide judgment dated 14.02.2006 in C.C.No.1350 of 2OO1 found the petitioner guilty of the offcnce under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him 1.o undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. The petitioner was further directed to pay compen sation of Rs.2,50,096/- to respondent No.1, after lapse of appeal time. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.1 preferred an Appeal.

6. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 3l.l2.2OOl irr Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2006 dismissed the Appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, petitioner No.1 filed the present Revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the blank bh.qt,." issued to HDPL were used by respondenl No.I for \ T 4 foisting the false case; that there was no legally enforceable debt due by petitioner No.1; but the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence avaiiable on record in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revision.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court upon careful scrutiny of material available on record rlghtly passed their rcspective judgments and interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted' Therefore, she seeks to dismiss this Revision. g. On behalf of the complainant, the trial Court examined PW 1 and marked Exs.Pl to P23. On behalf of respondent No.1, DWl was examined and Exs.Dl to D9 were marked. Upon careful consideration of the material available on record, the trial Court obscrved that petitioner No.1, in his cross-examination, admitted the issuance of cheques and authorization given by him in favour of complainant, to collect money. Therefore, the trial Court upon holding that admitted facts need not be proved, rendered its judgment 5

10. In the appeal, the appellate Court, upon re-apprcciating Lhe evidence available on record in the same iines, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.

11. This Court, vide order dated 04.O2.2008, suspended the sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on petitioner No.1 and released him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction o[ the lcarncd III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Later the matter underwent several adjournments

12. In the case on hand . both the Courts held that the petitioner No.l was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, which hnding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of rcvisional jurisdiction undcr Sct:1ion 397 Cr.P.C. Hence, I find no reason to interlere with the r'vell considered judgments passed by both the Courts. Petitioner No.1 is no more, hence, these Crl.R.C.Nos. 134, 135, 136, 137 and l38 of 2008 in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, stand dismissed as abated. However, petitioner No.2 being the biological son of petitioner No.1, is liable to pay the debts of his father from his estate.*- GlgF-. ,ri a- ! 6

13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalall, R. Vijayan Vs. Baby2, S.R. Sunil & Company Vs. D, Srinivasavaradan3, Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D, Salvia, Somnath Sarkar Vs. Utpal Basu Mallicks and Gimpex (Pl Ltd Vs. Manoj Goel, (i) petitioner No.2 in Crl.R.C.No.134 of 2008 is directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs.2,50,096 /- to the credit of C.C.No.1350 of 2001 before the trial Court within a period of six monll-rs from today. On such deposit respondent No.1 is directed to vr,ithdrar,r, an amount of Rs.2,45,096/- upon filing an appropriate application before the tria-1 Court. An amount of Rs.5,0O0/- shall remain with the State. If the petitioner No.2 fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he sha,ll suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months; (ii) pctitioner No.2 in Crl.R.C.No.135 of 2008 is directed to deposit Rs.4,61,740/- to the credit of C.C.No.991 of 2O01 before :**--,*.=,***the - triaL.Cour,t..wi.thin-a,per'iod,.of..six.rraonths,.frorn".toda#,*Orusuela"*'.^*pn€E?,sr{&*--. deposit respondent No.l is directed to withdraw al amount of ' zo rk:) scc oe : ' 1zo rz){ scc zoo 3 (2014) l6 scc 32 4 (20l5) 9 scc 622 t lot.t ltr,.; sc.t tr,-s 1 Rs.4,56,7401- upon fiiing an appropriate appiication before the trial Court. An amount of Rs.5,000/- shall remain with the State. If the petitioner No.2 fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months; (iii) petitioner No.2 in Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2008 is directed to deposit arl amount of Rs.4,84,100/- to the credit of C.C.No.l189 of 2001 before the trial Court within a period of slx months frorn today. On such deposit respondent No.1 is directed to withdraw an amount of Rs.4,79,100/ upon filing an appropnate application before the trial Court. An amount ol Rs.5,000/ shall remain with the State. If the petitioner No.2 fails to comply with the a-foresaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months; (iv) petitioner No.2 in Cr1.R.C.No.l37 of 20OB is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,35,3341- Lo the credit of C.C.No.1351 of 2001 before the trial CourL u,ithin a period of six monlhs ltom today. On such deposit respondent No.1 is directcd to withdraw arr amount of Rs.3,30,334/ upon filing an appropriate applitation before the trial Court. An amount of Rs.5,000/- shall remain with the State. If the petitioner No.2 fails to comply with T I i 8 the aforcsaid dircction, he sl-rall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months; (v) petitioner No.2 in Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2008 is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,84,408/- to the credit of C.C.No.1352 of 200 1 bclore the trial Court within a period of six months from today. On such deposit respondent No.1 is directed to withdraw an amounL of Rs.2,79,4O8 l- upon filing an appropriate application before the trial Court. An amount of Rs.5,000/- shall remain with the State. If the petitioner No.2 fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shal1 suffer simple imprisonment for a pcriod of threc (3) months. lt is rnade clear that all the sentences imposed against petitioner No.2 shall run concurrently.

14. Exccpt the above modrficaLion, in all other aspects, these Crinrinal [?cvision Case Nos.134, 13[;, 136, 137 and 138 of 2008 in so far petitioner No.2 is concerned, stand dismissed. So far as petitioner No. I is concerned, these Criminal Revision Case Nos. 134, 135, 136, 137 and 138 of2OO8 are dismissed as abated. The bail bonds of the petitioner No.1 shall stand cancelled I Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shail stand closcd. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR n\ * \\\=- i I '' secrtou oFFtcER .- To,

1. The ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad 2. The lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad' 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to lrilr. G. Narender Raj, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies W' HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 COMMON ORDER CRLRC.Nos.134, 135, 136, 137 and 138 of 2008 nE shr t 9/ o o 02 ltN 2[25 t OESrY,tCH gO * r C .l t.4.' THESE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES ARE DISMISSED AS ABATED A