1 APHC010465222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1059/2024 Between: M.esther Kiranmayi ...PETITIONER AND N Sudhakar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K NAGA PHANINDRA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 438 and 442 of the B.N.S.S. is filed on behalf of the petitioner praying the Court to allow the Revision Case by setting aside the order dated 10.9.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1254/2024 in C.C.No.1176/2017 by the Special Magistrate, Nandyal. 2 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, the respondent herein filed C.C.No.1176 of 2017 on the file of the Special Magistrate, Nandyal, against the petitioner herein/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the NI Act’), alleging that the petitioner herein/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 02.08.2015 from the respondent herein/complainant; that when the respondent herein/complainant demanded the petitioner herein/accused for repayment of the said sum, the petitioner herein/accused was alleged to have issued a cheque bearing No.138082 on 03.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, DRM Office branch, Guntakal town; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner herein/accused that the respondent herein/complainant along with one Madhu Kumar used to run private chits and since 2011, the petitioner was a Member of the said chits and she paid total chit amounts and the respondent herein/complainant used to collect blank signed promissory notes 3 and blank signed cheques towards security for the installments to be paid in the said chits and pursuant to the same, the respondent herein/complainant took the said blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque in the year 2011 from the petitioner herein/ accused for wrongful gain and filed the aforesaid complaint. In the above background, the petitioner herein/accused filed Crl.M.P. No.1254 of 2024 in C.C.No.1176 of 2017 on the file of the Special Magistrate, Nandyal under Sections 63, 66, 67 and 69 CrPC praying the Court to issue summons to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Indian, DRM Office, Guntakal Post and Town, Anantapur District for causing production of particulars about petitioner herein/accused cheque book CAS enquiries of consequent years 2011 to 2020 pertaining to Account No.111072377789. 4. Vide Order, dated 10.09.2024, learned Special Magistrate, Nandyal dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.1254 of 2024 on the ground that the cheque book CAS enquiries of the petitioner herein/accused for consequent years issued by the concerned Branch Manager, SBI, DRM Office, Guntakal were already exhibited as Ex.D2 and the same is not disputed by the respondent herein/complainant. 4 Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner herein/accused. 5. Heard. Perused the material on record. 6. A perusal of the Order, dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Magistrate, Nandyal goes to show that the petitioner herein/accused, in order to prove her contention that the cheque bearing No.138082 alleged to have been issued by the petitioner herein/accused to the respondent herein/complainant on 03.10.2017 is not towards the amount indebted to the respondent herein/complainant as alleged, but it was obtained by the respondent herein/complainant in blank, as he runs chit business and the petitioner herein/accused, being the subscriber in the said chit, issued the said cheque. 7. However, a perusal of the material on record and the impugned order of the learned Special Magistrate, it is evident that the said cheque book CAS enquiries belonged to the petitioner herein/accused of consequent years issued by the Branch Manager, SBI, DRM Office, Guntakal, was already exhibited as Ex.D2 and it was observed by the learned Special Magistrate that the respondent 5 herein/complainant had not at all disputed the same. The reason assigned by the learned Special Magistrate is tenable under law. This Court is also of the same opinion and there is no dispute raised by the respondent/complainant with regard to the documents filed by the petitioner herein. In such circumstances and when the said document has already been exhibited, it is not necessary to summon the Branch Manager to give evidence, who is pre-occupied with his day to day bank duty. In view of the same, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 02.01.2025 RD