APHC010001262009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1386 OF 2009 Between: 1. R. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. LAKSHMANA REDDY R/O. BAZAR STREET, MAHAL VILLAGE, KALIKIRI REVENUE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. Y L AMARNATH BABU ANOTHER, S/O. REDDENNA BUSINESS R/O. 5-2-31, ANANTHAVEDDI, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPODENT(S): Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal against the Judgment in CCNO.158 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vayalapad dated 12.05.2009 and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused (1st respondent) for the offences with which they was charged Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. S S BHATT SRK, J Crl.A.No.1386 of 2009 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 12.05.2009, passed in CC No.158 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalapad, whereby and whereunder respondent No.1 herein/accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the NI Act’) and, accordingly, he was acquitted of the said offence. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Sri V. Surendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/complainant submitted that apart from the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the appellant/complainant also filed a civil suit in OS No.20 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler, against respondent No.1 herein/accused for recovery of Rs.3,39,835/- basing on the subject cheque, and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler, by his judgment dated 31.05.2014, dismissed the said suit on merits. He produced copy of said judgment before this Court. He further submitted that, as against the said judgment passed in OS No.20 of 2005, no appeal has been preferred by the complainant, as such, he fairly submits that the present appeal does not stand and the same is liable to be SRK, J Crl.A.No.1386 of 2009 3 dismissed, in view of the fact that the civil suit, which was filed on the same set of facts, was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, vide judgment dated 31.05.2014, which has become final. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1st respondent/accused concurred with the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. 4. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that originally, the appellant herein/complainant filed the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against respondent No.1 herein/accused and the learned Magistrate, vide his judgment dated 12.05.2009 passed in CC No.158 of 2002, found respondent No.1 herein/accused not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and, accordingly, acquitted him of the said offence. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the appellant/complainant preferred the present Criminal Appeal. The complainant, with the same set of facts, also filed a suit in OS No.20 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler, and subsequently the said suit was also dismissed, vide judgment dated 31.05.2014 i.e., after lapse of five (5) years from the date of acquittal of respondent No.1/accused in the criminal case, and the SRK, J Crl.A.No.1386 of 2009 4 appellant/complainant has not evinced any interest in preferring any appeal against the dismissal of suit. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submission of the learned counsel, this Court feels that no interference in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate is called for and the present Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Dated:26.06.2025 Nsr SRK, J Crl.A.No.1386 of 2009 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.1386 of 2009 Dated:26.06.2025 Nsr