APHC010197382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 291/2022 Between: 1. REVU RAMBABU,, S/O RAMAYYA, AS PER COMPLAINT SHOWN AS S/O RAMBABU (LATE) AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RIO D.NO. 44-10- 51, VEERANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, ANNAPURNAMMAPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM URBAN. ...PETITIONER AND 1. REDDI MANESWARA RAO, (COMPLAINANT) S/O VEERA SWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NEAR SWAMALAMMA TEMPLE, MANGALAVARAPU PETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 2. THE STATE, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. V S MALLIKHARJUNA KULADEEP THOKA The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 291 OF 2022 ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the judgement, dated 21.03.2022, passed in Crl.A.No. 117 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 27.02.2017, passed in CC.No.732 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. 2. Heard Sri. A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Mallikharjuna Kuldeep Thoka for Respondent No.1 and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. The Revision Petitioner is the accused in CC.No. 732 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram filed by the Respondent No.1 herein for the offences under Section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act. It is the case of the complainant therein that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- from him on 27.10.2013, executed a promissory note agreeing to pay interest at 24% per annum. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 575340, dated 01.09.2014 towards part payment of debt due under promissory note. Upon presentation of the said cheque with the bank, the same is returned for want of funds. Aggrieved by the same, a criminal complaint is filed by the Respondent No.1 herein, against the revision petitioner. 4. Considering the evidence adduced on record, the petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.11,10,000/- within a period of 3 months, out of which, Rs.11,00,000/- is to be paid to the complainant therein towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C., and in default of payment of fine amount within the said period, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 3 months. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction judgement by the Learned Trial Court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2017, on the file ofI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram on the grounds that the Trial Court failed to see that there no ingredients for the offence under Section 138 NI Act, there is nolegally enforceable debt between the petitioner and Respondent No.1 i.e. the complainant therein and that the Respondent No.1 is not financially capable of lending such a huge amount. 6. 6. On hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal by confirming the Judgement 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 petitioner and Respondent No.1 and there is no factual basis to draw presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Respondent No.1 being an Income Tax Assessee, did not show the amount lent to the petitioner in his Tax Returns.The scribe of the promissory note is not examined to prove the execution of the alleged promissory note. Learned counsel finally prays to set aside the conviction andsentence passed against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 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: 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 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 12023INSC894 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 Nadu2 referred 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 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 22024 INSC 642 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 21.03.2022, passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, in Crl.A.No. 117 of 2022 confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 27.02.2017, passed by the learned II Addtional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram in CC.No.732 of 2015.The police are directed to take the Petitioner/Accused into custody for undergoing the of imprisonment imposed against him. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 28.01.2026 Dinesh THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.291 of 2022 DATE:28.01.2026 Dinesh