13251 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 8720F 2009 Revision filed under sections 397 & 401 of cr.P-c., against the judgment passedinCriminalAppealNols2of200s,dated'4-2-2OOgonthefiteoflV Additonat Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Nampally, Hyderabad' Between: K. Sunitha, Wo. K. Jaganmohan Reddy,-aged !4.yeats' Occ: Ho.usehold' .R/o' ii.No S-i_dagtaOS, pfrJse.ii, kamatapuriCoiony Sririagar Colony, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND l.TheStateofA.P.Rep'byPublicProsecutor.,HighCourtofA.P.Hyderabad' 2. G. Bhupal Reddv, S/o. Late G. Limba Reddy, aged about 50 years' Occ: -' Busineis R/o. 3j6-546, Himayathnagar Hyderabad' ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P Bhakthavatsal/ Ms. Zehra Begum appointed by legal services committee Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : The Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: --- The Court made the following: ; I i i :i i : I ! I i I I I THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.872 0F 20,09 ORDER: Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for the offence under SEction 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in crl.A.No. 182 / 2oo8, vide Judgment dated 04.o2.2oog,setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in c'c'No' 161 of 2006, present revision is rrlecr bv the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that thc accused approached her for loan of Rs.6,5O,OOO /_ and the same was given. when the complainant asked to return the said amount, the accused issued three cheques Ibr Rs.1,50,000/_ each and one cheque for Rs.2,OO,OOO/_. Whcn the said cheques were presented for clearance the-y rvere returned unpaid for the reason of ,funds not arrangecl for,. Notice was issued intimating the return of three cheques thaL rvere under t ! l iI I I 2 Exs.PltoP3.Sincetheamountwasnotpaid,complaintwas filed. 3. The learned trial Judge examined the complainant and one Upender Reddy and marked Exs'Pl to P8 on behalf of the complainant. The accused himself entered into box and examined himself as DW1. 4. The learned Magistrate found that there was legally enforceable debt and accordingly convicted the accused' The accused. preferred appeal before the Sessions Court' The learned Sessions Judge found that the amounts that were alleged to have been given without the knowledge of the husband of the complainant, could not be believed' The complainant also did not hle proof of sources from which the amount was paid. The learned Sessions Judge lurther found that there was no date on the cheques and accordingly acquitted the accused. 5. Having gone through the record' the Iindings of the learned Sessions Judge are on the basis of evidence which are also probable. Under Section 40i (3) of Cr'P'C'' this Court J under revision cannot convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. There are no reasons to remand the case to the trial Court. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ''i SECTION OFFICER To 1 The lV Addrtional lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2_. fhe tt Addrtronat Chief Metropolitan Maoistraie,' HriOLraOaA 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, Higtic;urt i"iin" strt. of rerangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 4. One CC to Srr p Bhakthavatsal, Advocate (OPUC) 5 one CC to tr4s ZEHRA BEgUIvt, nOvociiL rub U,lt o 19-4_281tctl. Saojay ^ Gandtrrnlgar Jaharusune, N S.Kunte_5000SS, f_S. - 6. Two CD Copres I,R I @] t I HIGH COURT DATED:0510712024 ORDER CRLRC.No.872 of 2009 DISMISSING THE CRL.RC ,,,rE:.'iI,i o,' , :.t)oo Z B :,:\i :izl $( o t)F I I I l I i I I ! , I , I