IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.910 of 2008 Between: M.Padmavathi … Petitioner And K.Venkateswarlu and the State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.910 of 2008 ORDER: - This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioner/accused for quashing the orders of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.22 of 2006, dated 08.02.2008, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.263 of 2004, dated 06.02.2006 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, “N.I.Act”) and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner has not denied the signature on Ex.P1 cheque, but took a plea that she issued the blank cheque and failed to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The suggestion made to P.W.1, that P.W.1 retained one of the blank cheques signed by the accused which were issued for discharging the Bank Loan and he misused the same and filed the complaint, itself shows the issuance of the cheque by the petitioner/accused. Mere putting a suggestion will not amount to proof of her issuing a blank cheque to the complainant for the purpose of discharging the bank loan and misuse of the cheque by the complainant. In the absence of the same, both the courts below rightly drawn the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act, after appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant. In view of the same, this Court in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot reappraise the entire evidence unless it is established that the trial Court or revisional Court has not considered the evidence adduced by the petitioner in proper perspective and the findings so recorded are perverse and no prudent person can come to such conclusion. It is not a fit case to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, by this Court. Criminal Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 1st July 2010 lmv