C.Balaiah, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 571 Tel

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                    Crl.R.C.No.182 OF 2009

JUDGMENT :

None appears for the petitioner and there is no

representation. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

respondent No.1. Perused the record.

2. This criminal revision case arises against the judgment

dated 30.01.2009 in Crl.A.No.252 of 2008 passed by the learned

IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in CC.No.479 of

2001 vide judgment dated 25.07.2008 by the learned

VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner is accused and respondent No.2 is complainant

in C.C.No.479 of 2001.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the

petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138

of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to

as 'N.I. Act'). Respondent No.2/complainant stated that accused

took a hand loan of Rs.35,000/- on 12.01.2001 and issued cheque

bearing No.576256 dated 12.01.2001 for Rs.35,000/- and when he

presented the same for collection of funds, but the same was

dishonoured with an endorsement "ACCOUNT CLOSED". He

issued legal notice on 16.07.2001 and the same was returned on

27.07.2001.

5. Respondent No.2/complainant was examined as PW1 and

got marked Exs.P1 to P5. Petitioner/accused was examined

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and after considering the entire

evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the

petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138

of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo three (03) months

rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default

to suffer one (01) month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal and the

appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court

holding that the legal notice Ex.P-3 sent to the correct address of

the accused was returned to the sender under Ex.P-5

endorsement and it was observed that mandatory notice was

issued, but the petitioner/accused got it returned by managing

the postal authorities. The petitioner/accused raised the same

point before this Court. As it was already answered by the

appellate Court this Court finds no infirmity in the judgment of

the appellate Court and the present revision is preferred against

the concurrent findings of both the Courts.

6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere

with the said findings of the courts below, as there is no error

apparent on the face of the record and the revision is devoid of

merits.

7. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. No

costs.

8. As a sequel to, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Date: 03.02.2022 Yvkr