THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2045 of 2010 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the complaint given by the first respondent herein, the petitioner was tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, in C.C.No.162 of 2007 (Old C.C.No.1178 of 2005) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, the complainant got himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked. On behalf of the accused, D.W-1 was examined, but no documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant. The same was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, who by his judgment, dated 14.10.2010, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment rendered by the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant gave a hand loan of Rs.44,000/- to the accused and that the accused executed 14 post dated cheques in favour of the complainant, but when the same were presented, they were returned for the reason “insufficient funds”. Later, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 12.05.2005, to which the accused gave a reply admitting the issuance of the said cheques but did not repaid the cheque amounts to the complainant. Hence, the complaint. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the compensation ordered to be paid by the petitioner-accused to the complainant has already been paid. In the light of the fact that the compensation was already paid by the petitioner-accused to the complainant, and as the petitioner is in jail since 14.10.2010, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed on the petitioner-accused by the Courts below, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of compensation. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 26th October 2010 dr