APHC010826012014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3367]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS.: 1291/2014 & 2234/2016 Between in Crl.R.C.No.1291 of 2014:

Sri Sai Enterprises & Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State Of A P Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Between in Crl.R.C.No.2234 of 2016:

A.srinivasa Reddy, Prakasam Dt. ...PETITIONER(S)

AND Sri Sai Enterprises Prakasam Dt 2 Otrs Pp ...RESPONDENT(S)

and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S) in Crl.R.C.No.1291 of 2014:

MISS.P.S ATYA HARITHA, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTED SRI NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S) in Crl.R.C.No.1291 of 2014:

1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Assailing the judgment dated 15.05.2014 in Crl.A.No.108 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Ongole, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 by the judgment dated 14.05.2012 in C.C.No.77 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chirala, for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “N.I. Act”), the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the Criminal Revision Case No.1291 of 2014 under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. Assailing the judgment dated 15.05.2014 in Crl.A.No.115 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Ongole, for not awarding compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., when found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, by the judgment dated 14.05.2012 in C.C.No.77 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chirala, the petitioner/complainant filed the Criminal Revision Case No.2234 of 2016 under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

3. Since both the revisions are arisen out of same cause of action, between the same parties and as material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. These revision cases were admitted on 24.06.2014 and 01.09.2016 respectively and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused No.2 was suspended, vide order dated 24.06.2014 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2067 of 2014 in Crl.R.C.No.1291 of 2014.

5. Now, it is required to be noted the fact that as per the letter received from the Trial Court they could not trace the Trial Court record, which was received from the Sessions Court concerned on 24.05.2014 itself in Dis.No.340, thereby, this Court, vide proceedings dated 26.04.2024, ordered the Registry to receive the certified copies of the documents from the learned counsel for the accused for reconstruction of the bundle as well directed the learned Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole to take appropriate disciplinary action against the staff concerned for misplacing the original record. As such, the reconstructed entire material part of the record is only available before this Court to proceed with the matter.

6. The shorn of complainant case in the complaint before the Trial Court is that:

The accused No.2 is the proprietor of 1^st accused firm. The accused No.1 firm is having credit katha maintained with the partnership firm of the complainant and indebted an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. On that, the accused got issued Ex.P.1 cheque bearing No.276403, dated 14.09.2007 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Ongole towards full and final settlement. On presentation of the same for realization by the complaint, the said cheque was returned under Ex.P.2 cheque returned memo, dated 18.09.2007 with an endorsement that “insufficient funds”. Then the complaint got issued Ex.P.3 legal notice to the accused on 22.09.2007 requesting them to repay the cheque amount