1 APHC010082012019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 319/2019 Between: 1. MURALI KRISHNA TRANSPORT, W/O.NUKARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.28-18-10/2, KANITHI, RH COLONY, VADLAPUDI, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 2. GANDAVARAPU VENKATALAKSHMI, W/O.NUKARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, HINDU, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O.D.N0.28-18-10/2, KANITHI RH COLONY,VADLAPUDI, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI, 2. ADUSUMILLI SATISH KUMAR, S/O.SUBRAHMANYAM, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS, R/O.KANUKOLLU VILLAGE, MUDINEPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, PRESENT RESIDING AT GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, by suspending the conviction and sentence imposed in calendar and judgment dated 29.07.2013 passed in CC No.10/2010 on the file of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada as was confirmed by the Judgment dated 12.03.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.195/2013 on the file of the court of Learned XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada. 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 319 OF 2019 ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the judgement, dated 12.03.2019, passed in Crl.A.No.195 of 2013 on the file of the learnedXI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 29.07.2013, passed in CC.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the learnedAdditional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Gudivada. 2. Heard Sri. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the petitioners,Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri. P S P Suresh Kumar for Respondent No.2. 3. The Revision Petitioner is the accused in CC.No. 10 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Gudivada filed by the Respondent No.2 herein for the offences under Section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act. It is the case of the complainant therein that the 1stpetitioner is a partnership firm and the 2nd petitioner is the Managing Partner and Authorized Person of the said firm. The Respondent No.2 is a lorry fleet owner who supplies lorries on hire basis and he hired his lorries to the 1st petitioner, for which the 1st petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,70,000/-. On 02.08.2009, the 1st petitioner represented by the 2nd petitioner issued a letter stating liability to pay the said amount and a post-dated cheque bearing No. 387899 in favour of the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 presented the cheque for collection 4 twice but the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.The Respondent No.2 issue statutory notice to the petitioners and the petitioners even after receiving the failed to give reply and did not pay the cheque amount. Under these circumstances, Respondent No.2 filed complaint against both the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Considering the evidence adduced on record, the 2ndpetitioner is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs.5,70,000/- towards compensation under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C., and in default of payment of the said amount, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 3 months. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction judgement by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner preferred in Crl.A.No. 195 of 2013 on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, on the grounds that the Trial Court failed to see that there no ingredients for the offence under Section 138 NI Act, that the Respondent No.2 failed to prove that the 2nd petitioner is looking after day-to-day affairs of the firm, that there is no legally enforceable debt between the petitioners and Respondent No.1 i.e. the complainant therein. 6. On hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal by confirming the Judgement 5 of the learned Trial Judge and directed the Trial Court to secure the presence of the petitioner to undergo the sentence imposed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sentence passed against the petitioner is contrary to law on the grounds that there are no ingredients for the offence under 138 NI Act. There is no legally enforceable debt between the petitioners and Respondent No.2 and there is no factual basis to draw presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, the Respondent No.2 failed to submit any document showing that the 2nd petitioner is looking after the day-to-day affairs of the 1st petitioner. Learned counsel finally prays to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 would submit that there are no circumstances to revise the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, which is confirmed in the criminal appeal since the same is passed after weighing evidence and hearing both sides. Learned counsel prays to dismiss the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the court may pass appropriate orders. Point for determination: 9. On perusal of material on record and on hearing the learned counsels, whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded in the impugned judgments that warrant interference of this Court in a revision? Determination by the Court: 6 10. With regard to the revisional jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again cautioned about the limits in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and as to how sparingly it must be used. An appellate Court’s jurisdiction is co- extensive with that of the original court in so far as the appreciation and reappreciation of the evidence is considered. While sitting in revision, the Court is primarily concerned with the legality, propriety of the findings and on the exercise of jurisdiction. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. DilipsinhKishorsinh Rao1examined the power of High Courts in revisional jurisdiction and held as follows: 13. The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings.It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into 12023INSC894 7 the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, itmay be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction substantially falls unless within the case categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.” 15. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. …” (Emphasis supplied) 12. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Ravi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu2referred the observations made earlier in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra(2012) 9 SCC 460 held as follows: “10. Thus, the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that sub- section 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the 22024 INSC 642 8 powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. …” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In the light of the legal position referred supra, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any error or infirmity in the impugned judgement, warranting interference since the grounds raised in the present revision petition are same as those were raised in the Criminal Appeal and the same are answered by the learned Sessions Judge. The Appellate Court rightly dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the sentence passed by the Trial Court. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgement, dated 12.03.2019, passed by the learnedXI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, in Crl.A.No.195 of 2013 confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 29.07.2013, passed by the learned Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Gudivada in CC.No.10 of 2010. The police are directed to take the Petitioner/Accused into custody for undergoing the of imprisonment imposed against him. Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 04.02.2026 Mjl/* 9 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 319/2019 04.02.2026 Mjl/*