APHC010530502012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 540/2012 Between: 1. SK.BABA TAJUDDIN, S/O. SK.SILAR, APSRTC DRIVER, R/O. OLD MIG 171/6, H.B.COLONY, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. R CHANDRAMOULI ANOTHER, S/O.PRAKASA RAO, R/O. D.NO.21- 10/3-73, II-LANE, SRINAGAR COLONY, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. ...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 set aside the conviction and judgment of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District and judgment in Calender Case No.597 of 2009, dated 02-03-2010, on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 825 OF 2012 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 dispensary for filing of Certified Copy of the Calender Case No.597 of 2009, 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.540 of 2012 dated 02-03-2010, on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 859 OF 2012 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 suspend Judgment of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District and judgment in Calender Case No.597 of 2009, dated 02-03-2010, on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.540 of 2012 The Court made the following Order: The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against judgment, dated 19.03.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, wherein and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has converted the order of conviction to compensation recorded in Calendar Case No.597 of 2009, dated 02.03.2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. The brief prosecution of the case is that the accused/petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant for his family expenses by executing a promissory note. He agreed to pay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on the demand and he could not pay the same. Accordingly, he issued a cheque on 20.06.2007 for an amount of Rs.70,000/-, drawn on Andhra Bank, Vijayawada. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment and collection but the same was dishonoured for ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, C.C. was started in terms of the complaint of the 1st respondent. 3. During trial, the complainant appeared as P.W.1. He placed several documents including the impugned cheque, return memo, copy of legal notice, receipt of registered post, receipt of certificate of posting, postal acknowledgment and promissory note, which are marked as exhibits P1 to P7. The learned Trail Court, after receiving the prosecution witness both oral and 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.540 of 2012 documentary found the petitioner to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 130 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and convicted him under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and directed him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The said order of conviction was under challenge before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also in terms of dictum of Section 138 of N.I. Act has taken the view that in a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act, where the offence is of dishonoured cheque, fine amount which may extend to twice the cheque amount, may be imposed instead of any order of conviction and sentence of imprisonment thereby. The learned Appellate Court has modified the sentence imposed on the petitioner and converted the sentence to fine of Rs.1,25,000/- amongst which the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor person and he is a driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. It is not possible for him to pay the fine amount as ordered by the learned Appellate Court. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court is illegal and improper and has to be set aside. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Perused the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.540 of 2012 the prosecution has successfully established the charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Several documents such as cheque, legal notice and promissory note have successfully proved legal enforceable debt of petitioner. Petitioner has failed to rebut the legal presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act in this case. 7. Accordingly, there is no illegality or impropriety on the impugned order and on the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. However, considering the fact that the Calendar Case has started in the year, 2009 and it is pending since then, the petitioner being accused in the C.C. has suffered immense mental pain and agony due to the long pendency of the C.C. proceedings. Hence, I inclined to show some leniency to petitioner, the order of sentence modified by the learned Appellate Court is hereby further modified directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- directly to the complainant as compensation within two (02) months with two (02) equal monthly installments from the date of passing of this order and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- to the learned Appellate Court within two (02) months from the date of passing of the order if not already paid. 9. The petitioner shall file a memo before this Court showing compliance. Failing which, the learned Trial Court shall take necessary steps for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner to comply the order. 10. Let a copy of this order shall be served to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance. 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.540 of 2012 11. State shall intimate this order to complainant. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:09.09.2026 KPV 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.540 of 2012 151 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:540 of 2012 09.09.2026 KPV