THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.794 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment, dated 04-04-2000, passed in Crl.A.No.91 of 1998 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District, reversing the judgment, dated 07- 09-1998, passed in C.C.No.124 of 1995 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad (E & N), Rangareddy District. 2. The brief facts are that on 03-12-1991 the 1st respondent herein borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner herein by executing a promissory note, promising to repay the same with interest @ 25% p.a., and on demand, issued a cheque bearing No.898989, drawn on Andhra Bank, Dilsukhnagar, marked as Ex.P2 for a total sum of Rs.50,000/- and when the said cheque was presented by the petitioner in the Andhra Bank, Dilsukhnagar Branch it was bounced. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Section 138 of the Act, a private complaint was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.124 of 1995. 3. During the course of trial, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and two more witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.P.1 to P6 were marked. 1st respondent herein was examined as R.W.1 and another witness was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.D1 was marked. 4. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 5. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate, convicted the 1st respondent herein invoking the jurisdiction under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months. The same is questioned by the petitioner herein by way of appeal and the lower appellate Court by its judgment, dated 04-04-2000, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the 1st respondent herein. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present revision. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also on perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. In fact, the learned Judge having analyzed the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, while giving cogent reasons, recorded the said acquittal. Further, the scope of the revision against the acquittal is very much limited. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and the Court below is not justified in recording the acquittal, the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As the alleged offence took place in the month of 1991 and the respondent-accused has faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 1998, this Court, apart from the merits, finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy