THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1504 of 2001 JUDGMENT: Private parties i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein were tried by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C.No.737 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Having analyzed the evidence produced during the course of trial, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that respondents 1 and 2 are guilty of the said offence. But, however, the learned Magistrate, taking a lenient view sentenced the second respondent to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, alleging that the said sentence is inadequate, the complainant approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C and filed this revision. On 22.02.2002, this Court admitted the revision and ordered notice. Since the notices were not served on respondents 1 and 2, on 11.11.2009 a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order: “The revision was admitted on 22.02.2002 and notice was issued to R-1 and R-2 on 21.08.2002 and the same was not yet returned. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner was directed to furnish the correct address of R-1 and R-2 by issuing reminder dated 01.12.2005 and the advocate memos were also issued on 06.11.2008 and 27.07.2009. But the correct address was not furnished by the counsel for the petitioner. The revision is pending for the last eight years. To give one more opportunity, the case is posted to 09.12.2009 directing the petitioners’ counsel to furnish correct address of R-1 and R-2, failing which, the revision case shall stand dismissed against R-1 and R-2.” Pursuant to the above order dated 11.11.2009, the Office has made a note to the effect that the conditional order has not been complied with. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order passed by this Court, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed against respondents 1 and 2 As the Criminal Revision Case is already dismissed against the private parties, no relief can be granted against the State, which is a formal party. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date: 16.09.2010 va