IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETTENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.133 OF 2010 Between: Smt. Kanamala Sujana Suvarna Suvarchala Devi and another … PETITIONERS And State of Andhra Pradesh and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.133 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A1 and A2 sought to file this revision petition against confirming judgment dated 04.12.2009 passed by the II Additional Session Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No.165 of 2008, by which conviction of the petitioners for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act) and sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500 each passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bapatla, in C.C.No.20 of 2007, dated 29.04.2008, was upheld. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are wife and husband, have joint bank account and Ex.P3 - cheque relates to that account. According to the respondent No.2/complainant, A1 borrowed Rs.20,000/- from him on 22.12.2004 for her family expenses and executed Ex.P1 - Promissory Note in his favour and that subsequently A1 and A2 borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him on 10.02.2005 and executed Ex.P2 - Promissory Note for the said amount and that in discharge of the said Promissory Note debts, A1 and A2 jointly issued Ex.P3 - cheque, dated 08.08.2006, for Rs.70,000/- in his favour and that when it was presented for encashment, the said cheque was dishonoured as per Ex.P4 – dishonour memo. After issuing Ex.P5 - notice, the respondent No.2 filed the case against A1 and A2 in the lower Court alleging offence under Section 138 of the Act. There is no dispute that Ex.P3 contains signatures of A1 and A2. None of A1 or A2 was examined as witness in support of the defence version. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and proved Exs.P1 to P6. It is suggested to PW.1 that blank cheque was obtained from the accused with their signatures. The said suggestion was promptly denied by PW.1. Except blank signature theory, the accused has no other defence. Both the Courts below after assessing evidence on record came to the right conclusion in favour of the complainant. I see no irregularity or impropriety or illegality in the decisions rendered by the Courts below. The convictions and sentences are properly given based on material produced by the complainant. 3. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 19, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.133 OF 2010 July 19, 2010