THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.589 of 2001 DATED: 19-08-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner, questioning the judgment, dated 25-01-2001, passed in C.C.No.557 of 1998, by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21-07-1998 the 1st respondent herein-accused issued a cheque to the complainant-petitioner herein for Rs.99,000/- towards discharge of the debt and when it was presented in the bank for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ on 27-07-1998. Thereupon, the complainant issued legal notice on 12- 08-1998 to the 1st respondent-accused and the 1st respondent received the same, but did not pay the amount. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide judgment, dated 25- 01-2001, acquitted the accused under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed the present revision. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. As the notice sent by the office was not yet returned served on the 1st respondent, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out fresh notices and also to furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent herein-accused. Further, this Court by order, dated 05-11-2009, clearly observed that in the event of the petitioner failing to furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent, this revision stands dismissed against the 1st respondent without further reference to the Court. 7. Office has put a note that the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent herein. In the light of the said office note, it is clear that this revision stands dismissed insofar as the 1st respondent is concerned. Now, this revision lies against the 2nd respondent-State, which is a formal party, and therefore, no orders need be passed in this revision. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 19th August, 2010. Tsy