APHC010549462009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1036/2009 Between: 1. CH.V.NARAYANA REDDY, R/O FLAT NO.301, VIGNAN TOWERS, 9/5, RAMANNAPETA, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MODUGALA VENKATA RATNAM THE STATE OF A P, S/O VEERASWAMY, R/O D.NO.12-69, CHALLAVARIPALEM, NALLAPADU, 2. THE STATE OF A P, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto set- aside the Judgment in Crl.A.No.313 of 2007, dated 24.06.09 on the file of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the Order and conviction dated 30.09.06 in C.C.No.216 of 2006 on the file of the Spl. Mobile Magistrate, Guntur. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1411 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the sentence recorded in Crl.A.No.313 of 2007, dated 24.06.09 on the file of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the Order and conviction dated 30.09.06 in C.C.No.216 of 2006 on the file of the Spl. Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, and enlarge the petitioner on bail. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SANTHISREE 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is preferred against the order dated 24.06.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.313 of 2007 on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2007 passed in C.C.No.216 of 2006 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur. 2. Heard Sri V. Santhisree, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 and Sri Panini Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2. Page 3 of 5 3. The petitioner/Accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity “the Act”). Learned counsel for the petitioner/ Accused No.1 contends that the order of the learned Trial Court as well as confirmed by the learned Appellate Court are illegal and liable to be set aside. Originally, there were two accused in the case. However, the present revision is filed only by Accused No.1, as Accused No.2 was exonerated. It is submitted that both the accused were contractors and had jointly entered into an agreement with the de-facto complainant for construction of platform Nos.2 & 3 of Nallapadu Railway Station, Guntur. After completion of the said work, Accused were unable to pay the agreed amount, and therefore, a cheque for Rs.50,000/- was issued by Accused No.1. Since the agreement was entered into jointly by Accused Nos.1 and 2, only Accused No.1 alone cannot be held liable. 4. On Scrutiny of the judgment of the learned Trial Court, it appears that Accused No.1 is the sole signatory to the cheque. The responsibility and criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act rest upon the person who signed the cheque, unless there is evidence to show that the cheque was issued in discharge of any lawful debt or joint liability by any other person. In the present case, there is no such evidence except the claim that A2 is also responsible. 5. In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Court has rightly decided the issue. Thus, the finding of the learned Trial Court holding accused No.A1 alone liable is correct. 6. Another point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 is that Ex.P3-cheque, was manipulated by altering the year 2004 to 2005. This aspect was also considered and decided by the learned Trial Court. It appears that Accused No.1 did not choose to issue any reply to the legal notice of the complainant after the cheque was returned from the Bank as “insufficient fund”. Thus, at this stage, this issue cannot be raised again. It further appears that the learned Appellate Court has also considered this aspect and appreciated the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, I find no justification to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. Thus, this instant revision is liable to be dismissed on merits, hence, it is dismissed. Page 5 of 5 7. The order of suspension of sentence passed is hereby vacated during the pendency of the revision. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court to serve the remaining portion of the sentence within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of publication of this order. Failing which, learned Trail Court shall issue necessary warrant of arrest against petitioner/Accused No.1 to secure compliance with this order. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 23.07.2026 ANS