HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.563 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 17.01.2001 passed by the learned II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.100 of 1999. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the 1st respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.647 of 1996. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 1st respondent. After analyzing the said evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent is found guilty of the said offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months, by judgment dated 01.03.1999. As against the said judgment, the 1st respondent preferred Crl.A.No.100 of 1999 on the file of the II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the learned Sessions Judge with a modification in the sentence, dismissed the appeal, by judgment dated 17.01.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this revision. 3. Heard both sides. 4. This Court admitted the revision and ordered notices to the 1st respondent on 08.06.2001. As the notices sent to the 1st respondent were not served and inspite of issuance of advocate memos, the correct address of the 1st respondent was not furnished, this Court as a last chance permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent, failing which the Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed against the 1st respondent without reference to the Court and posted the case to 03.12.2009. Despite the same, the counsel for the petitioner did not furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent and thus the revision in so far as the 1st respondent is concerned was already dismissed on 05.11.2009. Now, the revision remains only against the State which is a formal party and no relief can be granted against the State. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th July, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.563 of 2001 (Dismissed) 8th July, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.563 OF 2001 Date:08.07.2010 Between: S. Satnam Singh … Petitioner and Pradeep Mahipat and another … Respondents