APHC010174592008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA I.A.No.1 of 2025 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 318/2008 Between:

1. S . GOPIKRISHNA,, S/O SRINIVASAN, R/O 48, STERLING AVENUE, MUNGAMBAKAM, CHENNAI-34 ...PETITIONER AND

1. M MAHESH, S/O M.V.KRISHNAIAH, BUSINESS, R/O VENKATAGIRI, NELLORE DISTRICT.

2. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A.PADMA VANDITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. -

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3. M RAVINDRA I.A.No.1 of 2025 in CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 318/2008

ORDER:

The order of dismissal of the instant criminal revision case after hearing, on merits, is recalled by virtue of I.A. No.1 of 2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner started the arguments.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the concurrent findings of the order of conviction by the learned Court below against the present petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act. She submits that the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is illegal and improper. There are no justifiable reasons in the judgment, and it is not in accordance with Section 138 of the NI Act. This order of conviction is bad in law. She further submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has not properly gone into the evidence on record and has caused a miscarriage of justice. It is the further contention of the petitioner that there is no incident of business between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant. The business relationship between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant has not been proved by producing necessary documentary evidence, instead of which the learned trial Court has passed an order of conviction. She further submits that there are contradictory statements of the complainant which were recorded by the learned trial Court concerned, but such contradictions were not noted at the time of passing the judgment. She further submits that perhaps the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was alleged to have been issued by the present petitioner in favour of the defacto-complainant for the purpose of remitting the loan regarding the business between the parties, but no bills or promissory notes are placed on record to show that such loan was accepted at all. She further submits that the complainant himself, during his cross- examination, has admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that there is a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for which the cheque was issued. She further submits that the cheque book was lost and, accordingly, the petitioner closed the bank account. Hence, when the cheque was presented, the endorsement appears that the “account was closed”. She further submits that the learned trial Court and appellate Court have not considered the relevant facts and passed the impugned order of conviction, which is illegal and required to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no contradictory statement of the complainant. She submits that the complainant has stated initially that he knew the petitioner for ten years while he was eleven years old. She stated that the complainant himself had a saree business which hails from Venkatagiri. She further submits that the argument regarding the date of issuance of the cheque has been properly mentioned by the complainant. The cheque was issued when the petitioner was 21 years old in the month of November 1999. The petitioner was in an NCC camp in the month of January 2000. She further submits that the document of the NCC certificate was not properly proved before the learned trial Cour