APHC010266262011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 753/2011 Between: 1. SATYA FINANCE, REP.BY MANG PARTNER, BODDU SRIDHAR, E.G.DIST, REPT. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BODDU SRIDHAR,S/O.SATHIRAJU BUSINESS JAWAHAR STREET, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P HIGH COURT HYDERABAD ANR, REPT. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,HYDERABAD. 2. C E V NARASIMHA RAJU G V V NARASIMHA RAJU, (TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR: CORRECT NAME OF THE ACCUSED IS G.V.V.NARASIMHA RAJU, S/O. RAMACHANDRA RAJU AGED 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O. NARSIPATNAM, NARSIPATNAM (M), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of C.r.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Crl.A., against the judgment passed by the Learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada, dated 20-09-2010 in C.C.No.469 of 2004. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLAMP 599 OF 2011 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 permit the petitioner to convert the Criminal Appeal into Criminal Revision Case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C NAGESWARA RAO 2. 8888/PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 753 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. In spite of the matter is being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, none appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The instant criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed against the judgment dated 20.09.2010, passed by the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada, in C.C.No.496 of 2004, whereby the learned Magistrate, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six (06) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. I have perused the order passed by the learned trial court. 4. The instant revision case was admitted on 26.07.2011. The de-facto complainant has preferred the instant revision case since the learned trial Court erred in not granting the compensation as contemplated under the statute. It appears from the proceeding sheet, since filing of the revision case, the de facto complainant/petitioner did not turn up to prosecute the case on earlier occasions and the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 5. I have carefully examined the order impugned in the revision. 6. On careful observation of the findings, it appears that the learned trial Court has specifically decided the grounds of the revision case as mentioned by the petitioner, he has also decided on the point for determination. I find no illegality and impropriety in the order itself. 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner has shown no inclination to prosecute the matter further and finding no illegality or impropriety in the order of the trial Court, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit. 8. Under the above observation, the instant criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merit. Since the petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned trial Court, for ready reference. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 05.05.2026 CVD