Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/772/2015 of K. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, KURNOOL Vs G. UPENDRA YADAV, KURNOOL & ANO on 7 January 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 772/2015 Between: 1. K. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, S/O K.
APHC010685472015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 772/2015
Between:
1. K. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, S/O K. VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY, OCC:
PVT.
EMPLOYEE,
R/O.
H.NO.4-34-24,
SANTHOSH
NAGAR,
KURNOOL
...PETITIONER
AND
1. G UPENDRA YADAV, S/O. ROSHANNA, AGE & OCC NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONER, R/O. H.NO.4-17-A1, BALAJI NAGAR, KURNOOL
2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS P.P., HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE HYDERABAD
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PADMAJA TARIGOPPULA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 772/2015
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.
O R D E R:
1. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Today, the matter is being listed under the caption “For Dismissal”.
2. It appears that against the finding of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class cum Special Mobile Court at Kurnoor, in CCNo.100 of 2013 dated 04.03.2014 which was affirmed by the appellate Court i.e., IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2014 dated 11.03.2015 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.
3. I have perused the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
4. On careful observation of the findings, it appears that learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence punishable under section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the judgment of conviction it also mentioned the evidentiary value of the witnesses in detail and the documents placed by the parties has also been scanned.
5. On careful perusal of the observation of the learned Trail Court, it appears that the Trial Court has specifically decided the grounds for convicting the Petitioner and he has also decided on the point for determination. The same was affirmed by the appellate court also. Hence, I find no illegality and impropriety in the order itself.
6. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
7. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby revoked. Since the Petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned Trial Court.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:8.01.2026.
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.772 OF 2015
DATED:08.01.2026.
KS