Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1791/2009 of YERRAMSETTI VIJAYA RAMA RAO, BHIMAVARAM-1, W.G.DIST. Vs PALAVALA PADMAJA, ELURU, W.G. DIST., & ANR. on 8 September 2026
APHC010174252009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1791/2009 Between: 1. YERRAMSETTI VIJAYA RAMA RAO,
SS, J
Crl.R.C.No.1791/2009
APHC010174252009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1791/2009
Between:
1. YERRAMSETTI VIJAYA RAMA RAO, BHIMAVARAM-1, W.G.DIST., S/O.
VEERASWAMY
NAIDU
HINDU,
CULTIVATION
R/O.
BETHANIPETA, BHIMAVARAM - 1, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. PALAVALA PADMAJA ELURU W G DIST ANR, W/O. PANTALA
JAGAN MOHANA RAO D.NO. 3B-20-27, KANDAKAM VEEDHI, PADAMARA VEEDHI,
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, 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 allow the Revision Petition by imposing the sentence of imprisonment to the maximum extent punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and also award a compensation of twice the cheque amount by exercising the discretionary power under Sec. 401(1)
Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAJA REDDY KONETI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
SS, J
Crl.R.C.No.1791/2009
1. VASAVI RATNA KUMARI DANDAMUDI
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SS, J
Crl.R.C.No.1791/2009
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1791 OF 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Status report of concerned Station House Officer is placed on record.
2. It appears from the status report that the petitioner is alive and he was instructed to appear. In spite of intimation to S.H.O. concerned, none appears on behalf of the petitioner.
3. This instant criminal revision case has been preferred against Order dated 24.07.2009, in C.C.No.229 of 2008, on the file of the Court Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram.
4. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the complaint of 1st respondent under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It has been alleged that a cheque amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- dated 27.02.2008, drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Power pet Branch, Eluru, was handed over to the complainant by the accused to discharge his debt. The said cheque was placed by the complainant to his banker, but it was dishonored with intimation “in sufficient funds”. During trial, complainant was examined as PW.1 and petitioner was examined as DW.1. Several documents including promissory note, concerned cheque, cheque returned memo, registered legal notice etc., were marked as Exs.P1 to P7.
SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1791/2009
5. After completion of trial, learned Magistrate was of the opinion that prosecution has successfully brought home the charge against the petitioner. Learned trial Court found petitioner to be guilty for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- out of which 8,000/-, shall be given to the complainant under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.
6. Challenging the said order of conviction, instant criminal revision petition has been preferred.
7. I have perused the observation of the learned trial Court also perused the evidence laid before the learned trial Court both oral and documentary.
8. Presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. Act was always with the holder of the cheque. Though, the presumption is rebuttable one, but the petitioner has failed to rebut the statutory presumption, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Learned trial Court has justifiably scanned the evidences and passed the impugned order of conviction.
9. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. Petitioner is directed to comply with the order of conviction by payment of fine and compensation within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of passing of order by this Court. Order of suspension of sentence, if any, passed by this Court during the pendency of the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby vacated.
SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1791/2009
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Dated: 09.09.2026 CVD/ASN