THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.767 of 2003 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein stating that the first respondent herein issued cheque for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, towards the repayment of the hand loan borrowed by him, and when the same was presented, it was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”, attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, has numbered it as C.C.No.536 of 1999. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant got himself examined as P.W-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 9. On behalf of the accused, D.W-1 was examined and Exs.D-1 to D-3 were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, by his judgment, dated 08.03.2002, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Against the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who by his judgment, dated 24.02.2002, allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties to put forth their case. He also directed that the fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to him. Challenging the said judgment, the complainant approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. Though notices are sent to the first respondent- accused, they were not yet returned served. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, as this Court is not inclined to allow the Criminal Revision Case, this Court is of the view that non- service of notice on the private respondent i.e., first respondent herein is not fatal in deciding the case. For the foregoing reasons, I see no error in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the said C.C. is of the year 1999, the trial Court is directed to conduct the re-trial of the case and decide it as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 03rd February 2011 DR