AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The learned sessions Judge has relied on the judgment in G.F. Hunasikattimath v State of Karnataka and Others, 1990(2) Kar. L.J. 452, for taking the view that the endorsement ''account closed'' will not make out the case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Radhakrishna Rao v Triveni
Panduranga Rao, 1992 Cr. L.J. 4048; Veeraraghavan v Lalithkumar, 1995 Cr. L.J. 1882; M/s. Dada Silk Mills and Others v Indian Overseas Bank, Surat and Another, 1992 Cr. L.J. 2874, which have taken a view different from the view taken in Hunasikattimath''s case. With respect to the view expressed in the decisions of these High Courts, I differ from it. A Division Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Madhu Steel Corporation v Geetha Industrial Engineering Works, Cr.P. No. 107 of 1993, DD: 23-6-1993, (unreported decision) is relied upon. This decision does not relate to endorsement ''account closed''. Therefore the view taken by the learned sessions Judge calls for no interference. No grounds to admit the revision petition. Hence, it is dismissed.