HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.900 of 2001 Date:08.07.2010 Between: T. Amarnath Reddy … Petitioner and Y. Narsimha Reddy and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.900 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.04.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Rangareddy District at Saroornagar in C.C.No.536 of 2000. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant, petitioner herein, filed a complaint in C.C.No.536 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Rangareddy District at Saroornagar against the accused, 1st respondent herein, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. After analyzing the said evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, by judgment dated 23.04.2001. As against the said judgment, the complainant filed this revision invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Heard both sides. 4. This Court admitted the revision and ordered notices to the unofficial respondents on 08.02.2002. As the notices sent to the 1st respondent were not served, by an order dated 06.11.2009 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 said respondent without reference to the Court and posted the case to 04.12.2009. 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 06.11.2009. 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.900 of 2001 (Dismissed) 8th July, 2010 cbs