THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2012 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein, who was examined as P.W-1, filed this Revision against the judgment, dated 1-9-1997, passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.275 of 1995. The brief facts are that the de facto complainant is a stock and shares broker and doing business under the name and style of M/s.Leo Portfolio Managers. During the course of business transactions, the accused became due an amount of Rs.4,82,061-60 to the complainant and to that effect, he issued two cheques for Rs.5,000/- each drawn on Syndicate Bank, Chiragali Lane Branch, Hyderabad. When the de facto complainant presented the same for encashment, the cheques were returned with an endorsement “insufficiency of funds”. Hence, the de facto complainant got issued a legal notice, for which he gave his reply with false allegations. Hence, the de facto complainant filed the complaint. The Court below taken the complaint on file under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.330 of 1993 by the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. On behalf of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exs.D-1 to D-6 were marked. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, by his judgment, dated 6-7.1995, found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed against him, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.275 of 1995 before the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, who, vide his judgment 1- 9-1997, set aside the conviction and sentence against the accused and acquitted him of the said offence. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed this Revision invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. Against the order of acquittal passed by the lower appellate Court, an appeal, as provided for under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., is maintainable, but not the Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. Further, it should be remembered that as this is a Revision against the order of acquittal of the accused, the scope of the Revision is very much restricted. Even if this Court ultimately holds that 2nd respondent herein is guilty of the offence with which he was charged, this Court can only remand the matter to the Court below for fresh disposal, but cannot convert the said finding of acquittal into conviction. In those circumstances, I see no merits in this Criminal Revision Case and the same is accordingly dismissed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 10-3-2011 rkk