IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3481 OF 2010. Date:20.04.2010 Between:- G.Anand Kumar ..Petitioner And D.Srinivasa Rao and another .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial, he was convicted in C.C.No.120 of 2007 by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.2,000/-, which has to be paid towards compensation. As against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.17 of 2008 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge- cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. By order dated 15.02.2010, the Appellate Court confirmed conviction and sentence in the revision petition. As against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court with this Criminal Petition. 2. This virtually amounts to filing a second revision petition against a revisional order passed by the Sessions Judge. At any rate, this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has to exercise its powers cautiously and sparingly in such matters, which are filed against revisional orders of the Sessions Judge. 3. There is no dispute about the accused issuing cheque in favour of the first respondent/complainant and about its dishonour. According to him, he has given the cheque to the first respondent due to relationship for withdrawing amounts from his salary account. On the other hand, it is the first respondent’s case that the cheque was issued towards repayment of legally enforceable debt covered by Ex.P-1 promissory note. The accused, as D.W.1., and his mother, who is one of the attestors therein as D.W.2, denied thumb impression of the accused in Ex.P-1 pronote. It is contended that the Courts below brushed aside evidence of D.W.2 on the ground of relationship. Except the first respondent’s husband, no other person was examined by the complainant. Husband is a competent witness for the wife, as per Section 120 of the Evidence Act. After assessing the evidence on record, both the Courts below came to concurrent conclusion to the effect that Ex.P-1-pronote was executed by the accused only. Decisions of both the Courts below are based on question of fact and after consideration of evidence on record. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below in this Criminal Petition. 4. In the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 20th April 2010 AMD