Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Putumbaka Sai Krishna vs Sri Yerneni Ranga Rao The State Of A.P. on 4 March, 2025
cL---`_
_---~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR
+
TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
:PRESENT.-
HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHIVIANA RAO
Crl.R.C.Mos.: 321 of 2009 and 1823 of 2008
eBLM[NAL REVISION CASE NO: 321 OFap
Between :
Sri Putumbaka sai Krishna, S/o Srinivasa Murthy, aged about 40 years, R/o
Peddapalem village, DuggI'rala Mandal, Guntur District,
...AppeIIant/Respondent/Complainant.
AND
1. Sri Yerneni Ranga Rao, S/o Venkata Ratnam, aged 50 years, R/o
J.D.Nagar, D.No.74-8-8A, Srujana Bhavan, Patamata, Vijayawada.
...Respondent/AppeIIant/Accused.
2. The State ofA.P., Rep. by the public prosecutor, High Court ofA.P.,
Hyderabad.
...Respondent/Respondent
Revision filed under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the
circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the
Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the
Judgment of the ll AddI. Sessions Judge, Guntur, dated ll.ll.2008 in
crI.A.No.246 of 2007 modifying the sentence passed by the lI Addl. Judge-
cum-First Class Magistrate, Tenali, dated 27.07.2007 in C.C.No.188 of 2005.
£BIELMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1823 OF2QQ£
Between:
yernenI' Rang Rao, S/o. Venkataratnam, 50 years, R/o. J.D.Nagar D.No. 74-8-
8A, Srujana Bhavan, patamata, vijayawada
...Petitioner/appellant/
Accused.
AND
1. Putumbaka Sai Krishna, S/o. Srinivasa Murthy, 40 years, R/o.
Pedapalem, Duggirala MandaI Guntur District.
2. State ofA.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
...Respondents/complainant
Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., Aggrieved by the
Judgment of the lI Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur dt.ll-ll-2008 in Crl.A.No.
246/2007, confirming the conviction and sentences passed by the lI AddI.
JudI.1St class Magistrate, Tenali dt. 27-7-2007 in C.C.No.188 of 2005.
These petit'lons coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petitions and
the memo of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments
of and upon hearing the arguments of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate
for the Respondent No.2 in both the petitions and upon observing that there is
no representation on both sides, Court made the following
COMMON ORDER:
ff No representation on both sides|
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the revision
was against concurrent conviction for the alleged offence under Section
138 of N.I. Act.
The Revisionist in one case is the accused in other case and the
accused in one case is the Revisionist in other case. The revision case
is of the year 2009.
Issue fresh reminder to the trial court for cause production of the
trial Court record.
The Revisionist and the un-official respondent are directed to
appear before the National Lok Adalat to be held on ,08.03.2025 for
amI-Cable settlement of the disputes I-n aS much as the alleged offence
Jt
under section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable as per sectl-on 147 of NII.
Act, at any stage.w I
SD/- K.SRIh \SA RAJU
ASSISTANT
/ITRUE COPY, ¢lsTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The ll AddjtI’Onal Judicial First Class MagI’Strate, TenalI-.
2. The lI Additional sessions Judge, Guntur.
3. Sri Putumbaka sal’ Krishna, s/o srinivasa Murthy, R/o Peddapalem
Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur DistrI’Ct.
4. Sri Yernenj Ranga Rao, S/o Venkata Ratnam, R/o J.D.Nagar, D.No.74-
8-8A, Srujana Bhavan, patamata, vI’jayaWada.(Addressee mos.3 & 4
by Speed post)
5. One CC to Sri Srinivas velagapudi, Advocate [opuc]
6. One CC to Sri SI’Valenka Ramachandra prasad, Advocate [opuc]
7. One CC to Sri G. Sri Krishna Kumar, Advocate [opuc]
8. One CC to Sri P.Narsing Rao, Advocate [opuc]
9. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court ofAndhra pradesh
[OUT]
10. one spare copy
CVSS
HIGH COURT
Dr.YLR,J
DATE D.. 04/03/2025
ORDER
CRLRC.Nos.321 of 2009 and 1823 of 2008
DIRECTION
I)t,
. wil. _