APHC010069782020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 158/2020 Between: VADDI RAJA SEKHAR,, S/O.VENKATA RAO, HINDU, MALE, AGED 42 YEARS, ATTENDER, MDO'S OFFICE, KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI. 2. KARRI ADIREDDY, S/O.SURAREDDY, HINDU, MALE, AGED 44 YEARS, CULTIVATION, RAMACHANDRAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. KOTTE GLORY (LEGAL AID COUNSEL) 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.158 of 2020 Dated 30.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), challenging the impugned Judgment dated 14.12.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.413 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, whereby and where-under, the Judgment dated 29.06.2016 passed in C.C.No.384 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, was confirmed. 2. The learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, ‘the N.I.Act’), and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed him to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of the said Judgment, towards compensation, under section 357(3) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. The learned Appellate Court passed the impugned Judgment dated 14.12.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2016 confirming the Judgment of the learned Trial Court. 3. There is no representation for respondent No.2 despite several notices, and that is the reason why this Court has appointed Ms. Glory as learned legal aid counsel for the respondent No.2. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.158 of 2020 Dated 30.09.2026 4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned legal aid counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the impugned Judgment dated 14.12.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.413 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, whereby and where-under, the Judgment dated 29.06.2016 passed in C.C.No.384 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, was confirmed, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? and to what relief?” 7. The petitioner is present before this Court. He submits that he paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with interest to respondent No.2. The learned Trial Court did not believe the version of the petitioner/accused, and having relied on the depositions of the both sides, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial Court as mentioned supra. The learned Appellate Court also concurred with the opinion expressed by the learned Trial Court by confirming the Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. Petitioner raised several grounds in the present Criminal Revision Case and all the contentions raised by way of said grounds were answered by the learned Appellate Court by giving cogent and convincing reasons. Therefore, 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.158 of 2020 Dated 30.09.2026 the conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 138 read with 142 of ‘the N.I.Act’) is confirmed. 9. With regard to the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed and payment of the compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner/accused has undergone 31 days of incarceration and the compensation amount mentioned supra has not yet been paid by the him. 10. As seen from the record, it is relevant to jot-down a few instances as under: i) The Criminal Revision Case was filed on 17.02.2020. ii) Vide proceedings dated 19.02.2020, I.A.No.1 of 2020 was ordered and a Notice was issued to respondent No.2, and the learned counsel for the petitioner was also permitted to take-out personal notice on respondent No.2. iii) The Notice was served on respondent No.2 through this Court via Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, on 24.02.2020. iv) The present Criminal Revision Case was adjourned trice awaiting the notice and at the request of the learned counsel. v) In the present Criminal Revision Case, vide proceedings dated 06.03.2020, this Court has noted the service of notice 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.158 of 2020 Dated 30.09.2026 on respondent No.2 and posted the matter on 10.03.2020, for hearing of respondent No.2. vi) On 10.03.2020, there was no representation for respondent No.2 and delay of 335 days on part of the petitioner/accused in filing of the present Criminal Revision Case was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee. vii) On 13.03.2020, Cost Memo was filed stating that the aforesaid cost was paid and therefore, the Criminal Revision Case was admitted and the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year was suspended vide order in I.A.No.2 of 2020 and the petitioner/accused was released on bail on executing a self-bond for an amount of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused was in judicial custody for a period of 31 days and as stated by the petitioner/accused an amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest was paid to respondent No.2. He further contended that the aforesaid amount is a substantial amount and that the same was received by respondent No.2. 12. Respondent No.2 did not appear before this Court despite serving several notices on him. Therefore, this Court has appointed Ms.Glory as legal aid counsel to the respondent No.2. The learned legal aid counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that as per the record, no amount has been received by respondent No.2 from petitioner/accused. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.158 of 2020 Dated 30.09.2026 13. In this context, it is apposite to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar 1, wherein it isheld that, right to speedy trial which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In addition to the appeals the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar2. The right of speedy trial of the revisionist is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a reasonable time. 14. Be that as it may, the petitioner/accused was in judicial custody for a period of 31 days. There are no previous transactions between the petitioner and respondent No.2 of similar nature. The record also does not reveal that the petitioner, on earlier occasions, was convicted for any similar offence. The petitioner/accused is aged about 57 years and he is working as Attender in MDO office, Kadapa. He has been facing arduous process of Trial, appeal and the present legal proceedings for more than one decade. Indeed, this Criminal Revision Case itself is pending for more than 6 years. The petitioner’s right to speedy trial, includes the right to dispose of the matters on the criminal side as expeditiously as possible, has been violated in the present case. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration underwent by the petitioner/accused herein, to meet the ends of 1AIR 1979 SC 1360 2 (1999) 7 SCC 604 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.158 of 2020 Dated 30.09.2026 justice, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of ‘the N.I.Act’ by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period that petitioner/accused had already undergone, while setting aside the order of compensation of Rs.80,000/- to respondent No.2. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.09.2026 DRNR 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.158 of 2020 Dated 30.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.158 of 2026 Date:30.09.2026 DRNR