APHC010280482008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1253/2008 Between: Pentakota Srinivasarao, ...PETITIONER AND Thangudu Vykunta Rao and other ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: C. Sharan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A. Ravi Shankar 2. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: The revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the concurrent conviction for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in Crl.A.No.46 of 2005 dated 09.10.2007 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1253 of 2008 Dated 01.04.2025 2. Mr Karthik, learned counsel representing Sri Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused had already undergone more sentence of imprisonment than imposed by the learned Appellate Court. In that regard, this Court has called for the nominal rolls of the petitioner Pentakota Srinivasa Rao from the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. In the nominal rolls report, the Superintendent Central Prison, Visakhapatnam submitted that the petitioner had already undergone seven (7) months six (6) days imprisonment in connection with the Crl.A.No.46 of 2005 on the file of the Appellate Court. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had undergone more than the imprisonment that he was supposed to undergo. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is sustainable. Nothing remains in this criminal revision case to adjudicate further. Therefore, the criminal revision can be closed as the petitioner had already undergone more than the sentence imposed on him. 3. Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded that the petitioner had undergone more than the imprisonment that he was supposed to undergo. However, the Jail Authorities shall be vigilant in this type of cases and take steps to release the prisoners immediately after completion of sentence period. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1253 of 2008 Dated 01.04.2025 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 01.04.2025 KMS 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1253 of 2008 Dated 01.04.2025 37 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1253/2008 01.04.2025 W KMS