IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1247 of 2004 Date: 21-07-2011 Between: Kallepu Ramesh … Petitioner AND Bommidi Mallikarjuna Rao and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1247 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision case is preferred by the petitioner (for short ‘the accused’) challenging judgment, dated 26-07-2004, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2003, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.343 of 1999, dated 17-03-2003 by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, was confirmed. 2. Even though the matter is posted under the caption “for orders”, no representation has been made on behalf of the accused. There is no service of charge sheet on the accused. 3. It is pleaded in the memorandum of revision that there has been no legally existing debt and the accused got examined DWs.1 and 2 to prove that by 1997, the accused stopped his business, whereas the claim of the complainant is that he supplied the corresponding prawns to the accused in the year 1999 and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 4. The points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the complainant adduced necessary evidence with reference to the alleged charge? ii) Whether the Courts below have properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions and the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner are sustainable in law? 5. On behalf of the complainant PWs-1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-25 were in support of his claim. On behalf of the accused, DWs-1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 6. POINTS: Before the Courts below, the question of non- service of notice was raised. It was observed by the Courts below that basing upon the addresses given in the record notice was sent to the address of the accused and it is to be deemed that there was proper service of notice upon him, relying upon various decisions. I have gone through the record and I am satisfied with the same observations of the trail Court. Further, it is clearly elicited from the complainant as PW-1 and his witnesses that the accused issued the corresponding cheque for Rs.6,50,000/- Ex.P-2 to the complainant and it was dishonoured. By virtue of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is to be presumed that the cheque in question was issued in respect of a legally enforceable debt. Further, the witnesses examined on behalf of the accused deposed that during 1997 itself the business of the accused was closed. But, no record was filed by the accused in that context. The complainant had placed satisfactory evidence and established his claim and the Courts below properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY July 21, 2011. KTL