THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1628 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 First respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act stating that the accused took hand loan of Rs.60,000/- from him agreeing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 1200/- per month and he demanded for return of his amount and for that the petitioners issued the cheque in question dated 30.05.1998 drawn on Corporation Bank for a sum of Rs.61,200/- and the first respondent presented the said cheque in bank for clearance but the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘refer to drawer’. Thereafter, after following the statutory procedure of issuing notice and as the accused did not repay the amount covered under the Cheque, the first respondent filed the complaint. 2 The trial court having tried the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act, found them guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced the 1st petitioner - company to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, the person responsible for such non payment on behalf of the first petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Further, the petitioners 2 and 3 are also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default they shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The trial court further ordered that the petitioners 2 and 3 shall jointly and severally pay Rs.61,200/- to the complainant – first respondent under section 357(d) of Cr.PC. as restoration of the hand loan advanced by him and in default of payment of such compensation the same shall be recovered as fine from the petitioners 1 to 3 under the provisions of Cr.P.C and shall be paid to the first respondent. 3 Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the trial court dated 29.05.2001 the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2001 and the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by his judgment dated 11.09.2002 dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 4 Heard both sides. 5 Having gone through the judgments impugned in this revision and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners this court finds no irregularity in the said judgments. Further, the courts below have given cogent reasons for coming to such finding. Hence this court is of the view that the said judgments need no interference and accordingly this revision is liable to be dismissed. 6 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed as devoid of any merit. --------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010