1 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.33/2009 APHC010038962009 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: 33/2009 Between: 1. M.V.CHALAPATHI RAO,, S/O. LATE GANGARAJU, R/O. 48-11-9, KRISHAN STREET, SRINAGAR, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case against the Judgment and Conviction, dated 07.12.2006 in CC.No.358/2006 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Visakhapatnam as confirmed in Crl.Appeal 2/2007 , dated 12.1.2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 39 OF 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 dispense with the filing of order copy dated 07.12.2006 in CC.No.358/2006 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate,(Prohibition and Excise), Visakhpatnam IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 52 OF 2009 2 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.33/2009 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 release the petitioner on bail, by suspending the sentence in Crl.A.No. 2/2007, dated 12.1.2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.33/2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.33 OF 2009 ORDER: This instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against Judgment and Conviction, dated 07.12.2006, in C.C.No.358 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition & Excise) Visakhapatnam, which confirmed in Crl.A.No.2 of 2007, dated 12.01.2009, on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner is suffering from different ailments and is aged about 67 years. It is not possible for the petitioner to carry out the sentence of imprisonment of either description. He further submits that, petitioner has also suffered long pending litigation, since the date of initiation of the complaint. So, at this juncture, necessary order of lenience may be observed. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed nominal role of the petitioner, wherefrom, it appears that petitioner was admitted to jail on 04.03.2016 and released on bail on 13.05.2016. He was in incarceration for about two (2) months & ten (10) days. Petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. During the course of trial, complainant deposed as PW.1, several documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. Amongst them, promissory note, cheque return memo, copy of legal notice and postal acknowledgment were also marked. 4 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.33/2009 4. Learned trial Court, after scanning the evidence found the petitioner to be guilty for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act., and directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-. On careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, it appears that the learned Magistrate has categorically scanned the evidences and there is no illegality in the finding of the learned Magistrate. During appeal, learned Appellate Court has also further proceeded to scan the evidence in detail. It is the opinion of learned Appellate Court that the appeal is meritless. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides as well as the findings of both the Courts below, it appears to me there exists no merit in this case to entertain the petitioner. 6. However, this instant litigation is pending since 2006, about 20 years have already elapsed. Petitioner being accused was roaming before the Courts, as an accused and convict; he has also suffered incarceration about two (02) months and ten (10) days. Petitioner is aged about 67 years, in the old age, it is not possible for the petitioner to suffer imprisonment for either description. Accordingly, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is maintained. However, the punishment of rigorous imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner during the entire proceeding. The petitioner is 5 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.33/2009 directed to pay the compensation amount within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order. 7. With the above observations, this instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 09.09.2026 CVD/ASN