HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.461 OF 2010 DATE:28.07.2010 Between: Muttineni Koteswara Rao …… Petitioner. And: The State of A.P., rep. by PP., High Court of A.P. and another …..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.461 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the accused against order dated 10.11.2006 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2005 by which that court dismissed the appeal for default on the ground that the accused was absent and there was no representation in spite of waiting up to 4.30 p.m. The said appeal was filed by the accused against his conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C.No.1306 of 2002 and sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-. In spite of dismissal of the appeal in the lower court in November, 2006, the petitioner is successfully avoiding sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial court and is evading his arrest for the last four years. 2. The 2nd respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the Magistrate on the ground that Ex.P-9 cheque drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.1,81,000/- was dishonoured. After issuing statutory notice Ex.P-13, the complainant filed the complaint in the trial court. For that notice, there was no reply by the accused, after having received the same as per Ex.P-15 postal acknowledgement. According to the complainant, the accused purchased feticides etc., from the complainant on credit basis and the amount due under that Khata was Rs.1,81,733/- and towards discharge of the said Khata debt, the accused gave Ex.P-9 cheque which was dishonoured. The accused did not examine himself to deny any of the allegations in the complaint or in P.W-1’s evidence. P.W.1 who is authorised representative of the complainant company at Vijayawada spoke to the entire allegations and marked all the documents Ex.P-1 to P-18. Apart from presumption that Ex.P-9 dishonoured cheque was supported by legally enforceable debt, P.W.1 gave evidence and filed Ex.P-3 statement of account of the accused with the complainant and Ex.P-4 Katha copy of the accused. There is no contra evidence on behalf of the accused. In those circumstances, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Finding that he has no tenable case in the appeal, the petitioner/accused/appellant absconded after obtaining suspension of sentence passed by the trial court, the appellate court should have passed judgment on merits even in the absence of the accused/appellant before that court. In any event, after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that there are no grounds to entertain this revision petition. 3. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The lower appellate court i.e., VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada is directed to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner/appellant and issue conviction warrant after arrest of the accused/appellant/petitioner. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:28.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.461 OF 2010 Date:28.07.2010 Gk.