1 APHC010685472015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 772/2015 Between: 1. K. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, S/O K. VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY, OCC: PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO.4-34-24, SANTHOSH NAGAR, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER AND 1. G UPENDRA YADAV, S/O. ROSHANNA, AGE & OCC NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, R/O. H.NO.4-17-A1, BALAJI NAGAR, KURNOOL 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS P.P., HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PADMAJA TARIGOPPULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 772/2015 O R D E R: 1. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Today, the matter is being listed under the caption “For Dismissal”. 2. It appears that against the finding of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class cum Special Mobile Court at Kurnoor, in CCNo.100 of 2013 dated 04.03.2014 which was affirmed by the appellate Court i.e., IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2014 dated 11.03.2015 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 3. I have perused the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 4. On careful observation of the findings, it appears that learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence punishable under section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the judgment of conviction it also mentioned the evidentiary value of the witnesses in detail and the documents placed by the parties has also been scanned. 5. On careful perusal of the observation of the learned Trail Court, it appears that the Trial Court has specifically decided the grounds for convicting the Petitioner and he has also decided on the point for determination. The 3 same was affirmed by the appellate court also. Hence, I find no illegality and impropriety in the order itself. 6. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 7. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby revoked. Since the Petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned Trial Court. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:8.01.2026. 4 171 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.772 OF 2015 DATED:08.01.2026. KS