M/S. CRANEX LTD. AND ANR. versus M/S. NAGARJUNA FINANCE LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 14-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. CRANEX LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
MIS. NAGARJUNA FINANCE LTD. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH. JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 
S.138-Appel/ant-2 representing Appellant-I firm convicted and 
C sentenced to 6 months R.l-Both appellants directed to pay a fine of Rs. 
I 0, 000 each-Appeal-Interlocutory applications filed before appellate court 
dismissed-Revision also dismissed by High Court-Pending appeal before 
Supreme Court arising out of interlocutory applications, parties entered into 
settlement-Consequently, appellants deposited the amount before appellate 
D court-Held, in the circumstances, order passed by High Court on 
interlocutory applications set aside-Matter remitted to appellate court for 
disposal-On merits it will be open to appellate court even to set aside the 
conviction in accordance with law-Otherwise it has power to convict, or 
direct sentence of imprisonment or fine-Appellate court will also consider 
whether the conviction is to be maintained or an order of imposition of fine 
E is to be passed in the light of the statement by counsel for respondents that 
if amount deposited is permitted to be withdrawn it will not press before 
appellate court for conviction, imprisonment or fine. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
F 789 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.2000 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Crl. R.C. No. 91 of2000. 
R. Venugopal Reddy and Mrs. S. Usha Reddy for the Appellants. 
G 
A. Subba Rao for· the Respondents. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. The case involves a settlement of the money claim 
during the pendency of a criminal appeal arising out of proceedings under 
300 
CRANEX LTD. v. NAGARJUNA FINANCE LTD. 
301 
-
Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. The main appeal, namely A 
Criminal Appeal No. 59/99, against the conviction is pending before the Vlth 
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad in the matter arising 
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments: Act. That is an appeal. 
against the order dated 8.2.99 of the XVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, 
Sentencing the appellant No. 2, representing the firm, to undergo rigorous B 
imprisonment for 6 months and further to pay a fine of R~. 10,000 or in 
default, to udergo simple imprisonment for a further period of3 mpnths. There 
is also a direction against the 2nd appellant representing _the 1st appellant 
Company, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default to undergo simple 
imprisonment for 3 months. The appeal against the conviction and sentence 
is pending as aforesaid, before the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions c 
Judge, Secunderabad. 
At that stage, it appears that some interlocutory applications were filed 
by the appellants in the appellate Court and the said applications were 
dismissed. Against the said order a revision case No. 91/2000 was filed in the 
High Court and it was also dismissed. This appeal has been preferred against D 
the said order passed by the High Court in the interlocutory proceedings. 
During the pendency of the case, there appears to be a settlement of 
the money-dispute between the parties. On 24.8.2000 this Court passed an 
order as follows : 
E 
"Learned eounsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners 
would deposit the cheque amount (Rs. 5,96,688) which was dishonoured 
..... 
within three weeks from today before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, 
,, 
Hyderabad. In this view of the matter, stand over for three weeks. 
Application for substituting the name of Mr. S.C. Agrawal as Managing F 
Director of the petitioner No. l's firm in place of Mr. Piyus Agrawal, 
Managing Director is allowed". 
It appears, subsequent to the said order, the appellant has deposited a 
sum of Rs. 5,96,688 in the Court of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 
A Certificate to that effect issued by the said Court has been filed by the G 
counsel for the petitioners, in this Court. 
-. 
In the light of the subsequent developments in the case, we are of the 
· view that the order passed in the Interlocutory application be set aside and 
the matter be remitted to the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. 
We order accordingly. 
H 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000)SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellate Court will consider the subsequent events, namely, of the 
appellant having paid a sum of Rs. 5,96,688 under a settlement to the 1st 
respondent and will dispose o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.