HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.106 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned II-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.137 of 2000 dated 24.01.2003. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner- accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from the 1st respondent-complainant and thereafter he issued a cheque dated 25.04.1999 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Dilsukhnagar branch, Hyderabad, towards payment of the amount due to the 1st respondent and when the said cheque was presented for realization, the same was bounced with an endorsement ‘account closed’. 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, the 1st respondent- complainant himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. 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 him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned II-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court, modified the description of the imprisonment from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment. 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 week 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 simple 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, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 15-07-2010 Gsn.