IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.992 OF 2010 Between: G. Ramesh … PETITIONER And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.992 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner/accused seeks to file this revision petition against judgment, dated 27.04.2010, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.127 of 2007, by which the appellate Court confirmed conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and also fine amount passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, by judgment dated 26.09.2007 in C.C.No.447 of 2005. 2. According to the second respondent/complainant, the petitioner/accused borrowed loan of Rs.1,30,000/- from him on 28.11.2003 on the basis of Ex.P-1 – Promissory Note and the accused gave Ex.P-2 – Cheque, dated 25.03.2004, for Rs.1,30,000/- towards repayment of the said loan. The said cheque was dishonoured when presented for encashment. After issuing the statutory notice – Ex.P-5, the complainant lodged criminal proceedings against the accused as he did not pay the demanded amount. It is contention of the accused/petitioner that he borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the complainant’s brother, who obtained blank promissory note and blank cheque from him and that with the help of those blank documents, Exs.P-1 and P-2 were created in the name of the complainant. It is further stated that Ex.D-1 – agreement dated 20.02.2004 was entered into between the complainant’s brother and the accused and that therefore, the accused did not commit any offence. Both the Courts below disbelieved version put forward by the accused on Exs.P-1 and P-2. DW.1 has failed to substantiate blank documents theory put forward by him. Ex.D-1 was not even confronted to the complainant/PW.1. Since the defence version was self-serving and without any basis, both the Courts below disbelieved version of the accused. In this revision petition, this Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact which were considered by both the Courts below and findings were arrived at by both the Courts below having regard to assessment of oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties. I see no infirmity in judgments passed by the Courts below. They are not vitiated by any irregularity or illegality or impropriety. 3. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 05, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.992 OF 2010 July 05, 2010