THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1996 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried as accused in C.C.No.229 of 2001 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. As against the said judgment dated 09.09.2004, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.277 of 2004 and the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Communal Offence Cases, Hyderabad, by his judgment dated 01.12.2004 while concurring with the said finding given by the learned Magistrate, dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the same the accused before the trial court preferred this revision. 2 Brief facts that led to the filing of the present revision are that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on 14.10.1999 for his personal needs and in discharge of the said debt, he issued a cheque for the said amount dated 15.12.2000 and when the complainant presented the said cheque into the bank for clearance, the same were bounced with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter the complainant got issued a statutory legal notice to the petitioner demanding him for payment of the amount covered under the said cheque, but as there was no response from the petitioner, after following the procedure laid down under the law, the complainant filed the complaint. 3 Heard both sides. 4 It appears, there was a settlement between the parties and the petitioner paid the agreed amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and in that context, the counsel for the petitioner produced receipts. Having looked into the said receipts, this court is of the view that the entire amount has been paid and in those circumstances, a lenient view can be taken. Further, the petitioner was taken into custody on 01.12.2004 on which date the appellate court dismissed the appeal and was released on bail pursuant to the order dated 03.12.2004 of this court suspending the operation of the judgment of the appellate court. From that it is clear that the petitioner is in jail for a period of three days. 5 Accordingly, the said simple imprisonment for a period of six months imposed by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 28.01.2011 Kvsn