Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
G.Santhosh Barhmmaji vs State Of Ap on 19 June, 2026
1
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.79 of 2019
Dated 19.06.2026
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010020842019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 19th DAY OF JUNE 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 79/2019
Between:
1. G.SANTHOSH BARHMMAJI, FLAT NO.29-13-38/4, SBI COLONY,
CHAKALIPETA, DABAGARDESN, VISAKHAPATNAM
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI.
2. DFUNGA SURYANARAYANA, D. NO.57-27-49, SRIRAMANAGAR,
OLD ITI JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.79 of 2019
Dated 19.06.2026
The matter was referred to mediation. However, neither the Petitioner
nor Respondent No.2 appeared before the Mediator for an amicable
settlement.
2. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “the Cr.P.C.”),
assailing the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, “the N.I.Act”). The learned Special
Magistrate-VI, Visakhapatnam, in C.C. No.180 of 2016, vide judgment dated
31.10.2016, convicted the Petitioner and sentenced him to simple
imprisonment for six months besides directing payment of compensation of
Rs.1,30,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.130 of
2017. By judgment dated 26.09.2018, the learned I Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirmed the conviction, reduced the
sentence of imprisonment to till the rising of the Court, and maintained the
direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/-.
3 While admitting the present revision, this Court directed the Petitioner to
deposit 50% of the compensation amount before the learned Trial Court. The
Petitioner complied with the said direction by depositing the amount on
13.09.2019.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. No representation for the Respondent No.2.
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.79 of 2019
Dated 19.06.2026
5. On a careful perusal of the entire judgment of the learned Trial Court
and the learned Appellate Court, there is no perversity in findings. There is no
flagrant miscarriage of justice and there were no material irregularities.
6. While deciding a Criminal Revision Case filed against acquittal of
accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad
Singh v State of Bihar1 wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under:
“13. … In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure
or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court
to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been
held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach
a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest
illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional
jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph
No.10 held as under:
“The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S.
439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a
private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the
Govt. has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in
exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require
interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of
a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked
or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the
law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.”
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, at
Paragraph No.7 held as under:
“7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside
an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the
State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in
our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases,
when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest
error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant1
(2012) 6 SCC 650
2
AIR 1951 SC 196
3
AIR 1962 SC 1788
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.79 of 2019
Dated 19.06.2026miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court
from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that
makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does
not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect
method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding
of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the
power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and
it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is
not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional
cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate
some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court
in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be:
where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still
acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out
evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal
court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to
be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either
by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based
on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These
and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of
exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an
order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said
that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in
view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether
the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this
case can be upheld on these principles.”
9. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred
supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any
iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a Second Appellate Court.
Therefore, appreciation of the evidence is not practically possible and feasible.
10. This Court finds no legal infirmity in the judgments passed by the
learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court warranting interference in
exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. However, it is observed that the learned
Appellate Court reduced the substantive sentence of six months’ simple
imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the Court without assigning any
special reasons. Such exceptional leniency ought to be extended only in
appropriate and exceptional cases.
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.79 of 2019
Dated 19.06.2026
11. Be that as it may, the Petitioner has already undergone the modified
sentence. Accordingly, the conviction, sentence, and the direction to pay
compensation are confirmed. The Petitioner is directed to deposit the
remaining 50% of the compensation amount before the learned Trial Court
within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default
of such payment, the learned Trial Court shall take appropriate steps in
accordance with law for recovery of the balance compensation.
12. The Respondent No.2 is permitted to withdraw the 50% of the
compensation amount already deposited by the Petitioner before the learned
Trial Court, without furnishing any security.
13. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. The learned Trial Court shall take
necessary consequential steps to give effect to this order.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 19.06.2026
KMS
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.79 of 2019
Dated 19.06.2026352
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 79 of 2019
Dated: 19.06.2026
KMS
