1 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1134/2009 APHC010300222009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1134/2009 Between: 1. PITHCHAPATI VENKATESWARA REDDY, KAVALI, NELLORE DISTRICT, S/O. SUBBAREDDY PROP: M/S. SRI DHANALAKSHMI FERTILIZERS & PESTICIDES, PESTICIDES DEALER. R/O. THUMMALAPENTA ROAD, KAVALI, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE REP BY P P HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. 2. M/S STANCES COMPANY LIMITED, HAVING BRANCH OFFICE SITUATED AT 25-11-1, TRUNK ROAD, ADAPAVARI STREET, R.AGRAHAM, GUNTUR. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY R.SURESH KUMAR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto call for the records made in Crl.A. No. 381 of 2008 dated 08-06-2009 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur dismissing the appeal and confirming the sentence passed by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in C.C. No. 381 of 2005 dated 15-12-2008 and set-aside the same by allowing the Criminal Revision. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1550 OF 2009 2 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1134/2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence made in Crl.A. No. 381 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur dated 08-06-2009 and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the main Crl.RC. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOMMA VIJAYA RAJ KUMAR 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1134/2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1134 OF 2009 ORDER: None appears on behalf of petitioner. Status report of police reflects that petitioner has moved to another place. 2. This instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against judgment, dated 08.06.2009, in Crl.A.No.381 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, by dismissing the appeal, the learned Appellate Court has confirmed the sentence against petitioner passed by IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in C.C.No.381 of 2005 dated 15.12.2008, convicting petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.A. Act. 3. On perusal of material papers, it appears that the 2nd respondent being complainant has filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. A cheque amount into Rs.24,443/- dated 31.03.2005, drawn on SBH, Kavali, was dishonoured for insufficient funds. During trial, prosecution has placed as many as three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3, several documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7 including statement of accounts, impugned cheque, memo of both the bank and copy of legal notice. 4 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1134/2009 4. Learned trial Court after completion of prosecution witnesses found the petitioner to be guilty and awarded the punishment of six (06) months with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, finding petitioner to be guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In appeal, the Appellate Court further scanned the evidence and it was dismissed without finding any merits. 5. I have gone through the observations of the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, on thorough consideration; it appears that concurrent findings of both the Courts below cannot be interfered with at this stage, as there is no legal ground to entertain. 6. In grounds of revision, it has been mentioned that the cheque was given to the complainant as a security during course of his business, but Ex.P1 i.e. statement of accounts and Ex.P2 cheque amount goes to show that the petitioner had legally enforceable debt to the complainant. 7. Accordingly, I find no justification to entertain the instant Criminal Revision and Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. The order of conviction against petitioner is maintained. Order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of the criminal revision is hereby set-aside. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court or before the jail authority to serve out remaining portion of sentence within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of passing of order by this Court, failing which, learned trial Court shall issue necessary warrant of arrest against petitioner to comply with the order. Since petitioner has not appeared before 5 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1134/2009 this Court personally, State is directed to intimate petitioner in respect of this order. 8. Let a copy of the order be served upon learned trial Court for ready references. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 09.09.2026 CVD/ASN