APHC010160502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 581/2019 Between: K.RAJU, EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.No.1-8, TEMPLE STREET, CHITTAVARAM VILLAGE, NARSAPUR MANDAL, W.G. DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATI. 2. MALLA NARASIMHA MURTHY, EMOPLOYEE, NARASAYYA AGRAHARAM, BHIMAVARAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K.L.N. SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused against the judgment dated 10.04.2019 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram in Crl.A.No.147 of 2018 confirming the judgment dated 06.04.2018 passed in C.C.No.428 of 2014 by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2 2. Heard Sri K.L.N.Swamy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. None appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are barred by limitation, as the statutory notice was issued beyond thirty days from the date of dishonour. It is further contended that the cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- does not match the decretal amount of Rs.2,99,733/- in O.S. No.145 of 2009, showing that it was not issued in discharge of the decree but was obtained earlier as security under the promissory note dated 01-04-2007. The endorsement “Account Closed” supports the defence version, and the complainant failed to examine any bank official to establish relevant facts. There is also no proper proof of service of statutory notice. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled to acquittal. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the concurrent findings of the learned Appellate Judge as well as the learned trial Judge are well reasoned and no interference of this Court is warranted. 5. This Court, upon consideration of the submissions and the material on record, finds that the learned trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence, held that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were duly complied with. The learned Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, concurred with the said findings. In the 3 absence of any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings, this Court finds no ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Learned trial Judge is directed to secure the presence of the Petitioner and to see that the sentence be served. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:03.02.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.581 of 2019 Dt.03.02.2026 Dinesh