HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.61 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.79 of 2002 dated 22.10.2002 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, C.C.No.276 of 2000 dated 19.02.2002. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner- accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.04426 and 04427 for an amount of Rs.45,600/- each towards payment of instalments of the loan due to the 1st respondent- complainant and when the said cheques were presented for realization, the same were bounced for want of funds. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the 1st respondent-complainant filed the complaint and the same was taken on file by the trial Court. During the course of trial, on behalf of the 1st respondent-complainant P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced her as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner-accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 1999 and almost 11 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner must have repented for what he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of one month subsequent to the dismissal of the criminal appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of Six months to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-accused, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 15-07-2010 Gsn.