Disposed¶39

Pamula Subbayamma, v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC5 May 2026CRLRC/1382/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; cheque dishonour conviction affirmed; sentence commutation - imprisonment converted into fine; elderly accused (above 65 years); ill-health / humanitarian grounds; maid servant; criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC; bail suspension petition under Section 151 CPC; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Pamula Subbayamma v. State of A.P. and Shaik Vali; CRL.R.C. No. 1382 of 2008; Justice Subhendu Samanta; decided 06.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Order of conviction affirmed; sentence of imprisonment converted into a further fine of Rs. 500/-, to be deposited before the learned Trial Court within four weeks; Criminal Revision Case disposed of and pending miscellaneous applications closed. ¶39

Pamula Subbayamma, Vs The State of A.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be affirmed or interfered with in this revision. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

As the petitioner's counsel raised no contention on the merits, the order of conviction is affirmed.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner's financial condition and present status, the petitioner, being a lady aged above 65 years and suffering from several ailments, cannot be directed to undergo a sentence of imprisonment of any description.

¶36

Key takeaways

The order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is modified: the sentence of imprisonment is converted into a further fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only).ratio¶37
The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount before the learned Trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Case No. 1382/2008 - High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Subhendu Samanta J., 06.05.2026). Pamula Subbayamma, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in CC.No. 385 of 2006 (V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, dt.13.8.2007) to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs.500/- with simple imprisonment of one month, whose appeal (Crl.A.No. 269 of 2007, IX Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, judgment dt.09.09.2008) confirmed the conviction, filed this revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC. Counsel for the petitioner raised no contention on the merits; the order of conviction was affirmed. Holding that the petitioner, a lady aged above 65 years suffering from several ailments (submitted by counsel to be very poor and earning her livelihood as a maid servant), could not be directed to undergo imprisonment of any description, the Court modified the sentence, converting the imprisonment into a further fine of Rs. 500/-, directed to be deposited before the Trial Court within four weeks. Revision disposed of; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[3560]

¶2

APHC010611162008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1382/2008

¶8

Between:

¶9

PAMULA SUBBAYAMMA,, W/O. KRISHNA, R/O. LEMALLE VILLAGE & POST, AMARAVATHI RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.

¶13

SHAIK VALI, S/O. FAREED, R/O. ANJANEYAPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to Aggrieved by the judgment dt.09.09.2008 passed in Crl.A.No. 269 of 2007 on the file of the IX Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur as confirming in CC.No. 385 of 2006 on the file of the V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, dt.13.8.2007, that the sentence and convicted U/s. 138 of N.I., Act to undergo R.I. for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- SI for one month, the revision petitoner perefers this revision

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1867 OF 2008

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence of imprisonment

¶18

¶19

passed in CC.No. 385 of 2006 on the file of the V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, dt.13 .8.2007 as confirmed in Crl.A.No. 269 of 2007 on the file of the IX Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, dt.09.09.2008, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

2.O KAILASHNATH REDDY

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1382/2008

¶28

ORDER :

¶29

The present petitioner is a lady who was convicted by the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881¹ (For brevity, N.I.Act). The said conviction was initially challenged before the learned Appellate Court, wherein the appeal was also dismissed by confirming the order of sentence.

¶30

At the outset, the learned counsel for the parties has submitted that the petitioner is aged more than 65 years and is also very poor, who earning her livelihood as a maid servant in other houses. The learned counsel for the

¶31

petitioner, with his usual fairness, submits that, in these peculiar circumstances, considering the financial condition and present status of the petitioner, the order of conviction may not be allowed.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent raised certain objections and submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have rightly passed the impugned orders, and that there are no merits in the present criminal revision petition to entertain.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any contention with regard to the merits of the matter. Thus, the order of conviction is hereby affirmed.

¶34

1 N.I.Act, 1881

¶35

¶36

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present financial condition of the petitioner, and her present status, it appears that the petitioner, being a lady aged above 65 years and suffering from several ailments, cannot directed to undergo a sentence of imprisonment of any description.

¶37

Accordingly, the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is hereby modified. The sentence of imprisonment is converted into a further fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only).

¶38

The petitioner is directed to deposit the said fine amount before the learned Trial Court within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶39

With the above observations, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶40

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

__________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶42

Dated:06.05.2026. SSA

Pamula Subbayamma, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pamula Subbayamma, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kosuru Subramanyam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Tarun Sai Gadde Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nagadesi Swamy Devanand Vs Gudivada Varalakshmi

Nagireddygari Viswanatha Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Belagalu Naganna Goud Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh