APHC010233402017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2411/2017 Between: 1. S.SRIDHAR, CHITTOOR DT.,, S/O. S.SATHYA KUMAR, EMPLOYEE, R/O. TYPE 5, D.NO. 3, STAFF QUARTERS, ESI HOSPITAL, NEAR MR.PALLI POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT G ANASUYAMMA TIRUPATI ANR REP PP, W/O. YERRANNA REDDY, EMPLOYEE, ESI HOSPTIAL, NEAR MR.PALLI POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI. 2. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF AP. ...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 present this memorandumof gournds of crl.Rc. against the judgment passed in STC.No. 152 of 2012 on the file of the VI Addl. J.FC.M. Tirupati as confirmed in judgment in Crl.A.No. 337/2015 on the file of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), at Tirupati, for the following among other grounds; IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 3932 OF 2017 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 2 condone the delay of 41 days in representation of the Crl.Rc.Sr.No. 23649 of 2017. IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 23650 OF 2017 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2411/2017 The Court made the following: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, wherein and where under a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed solely on the ground that the statutory demand notice was not served upon the accused. He submits that the learned courts below have not properly appreciated the material on record and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and improper. He further prays that the order passed by the learned courts below may be set aside. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. It is contended that the statutory notice was not served upon the accused and, consequently, the findings of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court suffer from no perversity. 4. Perused the impugned order and the findings therein. It appears that the statutory demand notice was not properly served upon the accused. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to serve the statutory demand notice again. However, the said prayer is not in consonance with the procedure and mandate as laid down under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the said prayer cannot be accommodated at this stage. 4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the records, it appears that the instant Criminal Revision Case has got no merit. 5. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:27.04.2026 SSA 5