THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.293 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.604 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Having analyzed the said evidence, the learned Magistrate by his judgment dated 16.08.2001 found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2001 and the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, while confirming the said sentence, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. The facts according to the complainant/unofficial respondent is as follows: The complainant is doing business in finance under the name and style of M/s.Bhavani Finance & Chits, a registered partnership firm represented by its General Power of Attorney Holder, Velagala Narasimha Reddy. While so, the accused, who is a retired Bank Officer in Indian Overseas Bank, Visakhapatnam, borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/- on 10.07.1998 from the complainant and executed a promissory note on the even date. The accused again borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- on the same day from the complainant and executed a promissory note jointly along with one Marampudi James on the same day. Thereafter, the accused has paid instalments towards part payment of the amounts due under pronotes. For the remaining balance amount of Rs.90,000/-, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.0939856 dated 15.09.1999 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Visakhapatnam. When the complainant presented the said cheque on 21.09.1999 through its Banker-M/s.Corporation Bank, Visakhapatnam, the same was returned for insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a lawyer’s notice as required under law. In spite of the same, the accused has not paid the said amount to the complainant. Hence, the complaint. As the notices sent by the Registry and the learned counsel for the petitioner were not served on the first respondent, this Court, on 12.08.2010, directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out substitute service of notice by publishing the same in Eenadu Telugu News Daily of Visakhapatnam local edition. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner got published the notice in the said newspaper and filed proof of service into the Court. In spite of substitute service of notice, the first respondent has not chosen to put up appearance before this Court either in person or through an advocate. Heard. When the petitioner filed this revision along with an application seeking bail, on 08.03.2002, though this Court admitted the revision dismissed the bail petition permitting the petitioner to surrender before the Magistrate and file an application seeking bail, in which event, the Court below was directed to consider his request for bail by passing appropriate orders. Sir A.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 08.03.2002 the petitioner surrendered before the trial Court and the trial Court enlarged him on bail. Having regard to the fact that that the alleged offence took place in the year 2001 and the petitioner suffered some sentence, and since the sentence imposed against him is only one year, this Court takes a lenient view and reduces the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the lower appellate Court, to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed in all respects. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date: 16.09.2010 va