APHC010062902019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 247/2019 Between: 1. V.VEERABHADRA RAO, D.NO.10-4-115, SUBBAREDDI COLONY, VISWANADHAVARI STREET, JANGAREDDIGUDEM, W.G. DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI. 2. VURUKARANAM RAVI SANKARA PRASAD, D.NO.3AB-6-9, WESTERN STREET, ELURU W.G. DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’), challenging 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.247 of 2019 Dated 07.08.2026 the judgment dated 01.03.2019 in Crl.A.No.460 of 2016 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby and whereunder the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of ‘the N.I. Act’ was confirmed, but the sentence of one year imposed by the learned Trial Court in C.C.No.118 of 2014, dated 18.10.2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari, was reduced from one year to six months, while the payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- was confirmed. 2. Smt. Lalla Tulasidurgamba, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the revision urged that alternatively the Petitioner is ready to compromise the case, but the Respondent No.2 is not available. Considering the age of the Petitioner who is at 72 years and urged this Court to allow the Criminal Revision Case, as the Petitioner is willing to pay an additional fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while opposing the Criminal Revision Case, submitted that this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record. The learned Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the Petitioner. He also contended that the learned Appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the material available on record, rightly confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court and urged to dismiss the revision case. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.247 of 2019 Dated 07.08.2026 4. Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 while supporting the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the Courts below, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly convicted the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of ‘the N.I. Act’. He further submitted that no illegality or perversity is made out warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction and, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.460 of 2016 dated 01.03.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. The learned Trial Court, as mentioned supra, convicted the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of ‘the N.I. Act’ and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Respondent No.2 was examined as P.W.1, and the Petitioner was examined as R.W.1. On behalf of Respondent No.2, Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the Petitioner, no exhibits were marked. The learned Trial Court did not accept the contentions of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment in the calendar case, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court also did not find the 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.247 of 2019 Dated 07.08.2026 arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner convincing and accordingly confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. 8. While deciding a Criminal Revision Case filed against acquittal of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under: “13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1951 SC 196 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.247 of 2019 Dated 07.08.2026 miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.” 11. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a Second Appellate Court. Therefore, appreciation of the evidence is not practically possible and feasible. 12. This Court does not find any material irregularity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice in the judgments of the Courts below. Accordingly, the conviction of the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of ‘the N.I. Act’ is confirmed. However, with regard to the sentence of imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5,000/-, it is to be noted that the cheque was issued on 05.01.2010 and nearly sixteen years have elapsed since then. The Petitioner is aged about 72 years. Further, the alleged offence 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.247 of 2019 Dated 07.08.2026 occurred more than a decade ago. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The expression "speedy trial" includes not only the stages of investigation and trial but also the expeditious disposal of appeals and revisions. Therefore, the prolonged pendency of these Criminal Revision Cases for nearly fifteen years is a relevant mitigating circumstance while considering the quantum of sentence. The law on this aspect has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar4. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar5. 13. Petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of six days. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the age of the Petitioner, the long lapse of time since the occurrence, and the period of incarceration already undergone by him, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by maintaining the conviction while modifying the substantive sentence. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, confirming the conviction of the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of ‘the N.I. Act’. However, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by the Petitioner. In addition thereto, the 4 Air 1979 SC 1360 5 2000 (1) BLJR 37 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.247 of 2019 Dated 07.08.2026 Petitioner shall pay an additional fine of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default of payment of the additional fine, the Petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. On deposit of the fine amount, Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 07.08.2026 KMS 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.247 of 2019 Dated 07.08.2026 141 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:247 of 2019 Date: 07.08.2026 KMS