IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.NO : 356 OF 2003 Between: Prakruti Sudarshana Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The State of AP, rep. by the Public prosecutor, High Court of AP and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No. 356 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, in C.C.No.314 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity ‘the Act’). During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 and 3 and exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-7. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty for the offence and accordingly sentenced him to under go simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioner by filing Crl.A.No.44 of 2001 and the learned V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmudnry, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 07-03-2003. The same is questioned in this revision case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court stating that there were no transactions between the parties and taking advantage of the blank cheque, the 1st respondent filled the cheque and presented it as if the said cheque was issued in lieu of the discharge of legally enforceable debt. 4. However, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Sri G.Ram Gopal, opposed the said submission stating that there was a transaction, and in that context, the 1st respondent paid the said amount and on demand, the said cheque was issued by the petitioner in lieu of the legally enforceable debt. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the orders passed by both the Courts below, it is clear that the Courts below were satisfied that there was legally enforceable debt and in lieu thereof, the present cheque has been issued and accordingly they held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence. 6. I do not see any merits in this revision, but however, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, and also the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about ten days, this Court takes a lenient view and reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months to that of the period he has already undergone. 7. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the revision stands dismissed. ___________________ 5th August 2010 KVR