IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 120 OF 2008 Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dt.10.09.2007 passed in crl.A.No. 6012004 on the file of court of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad at Kamareddy, preferred against the judgment dt.24 -06.2004 passed in CC No' 12O:2OO1 on the file of the court of the spl. Judicial [Vlagistrate of First class, (Mobile) at KamareddY. Between: Gogula Hanmesh, S/o. Shoomaiah, R/o. Kachapper Village, Bhiknoor lvlandal, Nizamabad District. ...PETITIONER/Complainant. AND 1 Padmachandra Veeraiah @ Chandrashekar, Sio. Gangadhar, C/o. Bhagyasree Jewellers, ltAaya Bazar, Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District ..RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ACCUSED. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P SHRAVAN KUMAR GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER l l 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.12O OF 2OO8 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case 1S filed by the petitioner/ complainant aggrieved by the order dated 10.O9.2OO7 in Crl.A.No.60 of 2OO4 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 2. Heard Sri P. Shravan Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents and perused the material available on record 3. The Criminal Appeal is hled by the complainant in the lower court. Complaint was. filed under Section 138 of the N.l. Act. The trial Court having considered the evidence on record, has convicted the accused. However, in the appeal frled before the District and Sessions Judge, learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 10.O9.2007 reversed the hndings of conviction and acquitted the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised various grounds, however, the notice is not served on the i I I I I I l ;7 2 To, respondent/accused. On questioning, Iearned counsel submits that the complainant is not aware about the whereabouts of the accirsed. The notice sent to the accused was returned on the ground of 'no such person in the address'. The appeal is of the year 2OO4 and the present revision is of the year 2008. On account of the failure of the appellant to serve notice on the accused, this Court is not inclined to keep the revision pending. Further no orders can be passed on facts in the absence of notice being served to the respondent/ accused. 5. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- B. SATYAVAT DEPUW REGIS //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER 1. The Vl Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad at Kamareddy. 2. The Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile) at Kamareddy. 3. One CC to SRl. P SHRAVAN KUMAR GOUD Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD copies. cvk e I HIGH COURT DATED: 2010212024 ORDER CRLRC.No.120 of 2008 CRL RC IS DISMISSED. \ -/'t C: '/k 11ae Srr' 16' o 14 $N 2[2r tfoo .b , t oFs PN u\