THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346 & 1347 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1 The petitioner in all these revisions is one and the same and he filed these revisions questioning the order of sentence imposed on him by the trial court, as modified by the appellate court stating that the said judgments of the courts below are erroneous. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and he did not pay the subscription amounts to the complainants, who were the successful bidders, instead he issued various cheques in favour of the subscribers. When the said cheques were presented, they were returned with an endorsement ‘insufficiency of funds’. Thereafter the unofficial respondents – complainants in all these revisions filed private complaints against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the trial court numbered them as C.C.Nos.390, 222, 272, 370 of 2008 and 186 and 175 of 2009. After a full fledged trial, the trial court i.e. learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Tenali came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed the said offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each dishonoured cheque and also to pay the respective cheque amounts to the complainants towards compensation, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for each cheque. The trial court further observed that the said sentence imposed on the petitioner in all the said cases shall run consecutively. Challenging the said judgments dated 15.03.2010 the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal Nos.120, 117 118, 119, 122 and 121 of 2010, but, however, the same were dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 07.07.2010. Questioning the propriety of the said judgments, the petitioner approached this court and filed these revisions and this court while admitting these revisions on 27.07.2010 granted bail to the petitioner, however, on condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the cheque amount in question of each case. However, as the petitioner could not comply with the said order, he could not come out of the jail. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. C. Praveen Kumar submitted that the total amount is working out to Rs.7,73,410/- and the petitioner is willing to pay an amount of Rs.1,90,040/- i.e. the amount involved in four Criminal Revisions i.e. Crl.R.C.No.1344, 1345, 1346 and 1347 of 2010. However, as this court is not satisfied with the said submission, this court directed the petitioner to pay a further sum. Accordingly, on instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay the cheque amount involved in Crl.R.C.No.1343 of 2010 also which is for Rs.1,18,370/-. The amount, in all, which the petitioner is willing to pay is only Rs.3,08,410/- from out of the total amount of Rs.7,73,410/- which is not even half of the same. 4 The fact that the petitioner was granted bail and he could not be released from out of the jail because of the conditions imposed by this court speaks that the petitioner cannot pay the entire amount of Rs.7,73,410/-. Apparently the appeals were dismissed on 07.07.2010 and this court while admitting these revisions granted bail to the petitioner by its order dated 27.07.2010 and as the orders of this court could not be worked out, the petitioner is in jail from 07.07.2010 onwards i.e. for the last eight months. As the petitioner had already undergone a sentence of more than six months and the petitioner has come forward stating that he is prepared to deposit an amount of Rs.3,08,410/-, this court is of the view that the petitioner can be directed to deposit half of the amount in question i.e. Rs.3,86,705/-before the trial court within a period of four weeks and on such deposit the entire amount so deposited shall be paid to the complainants in all the cases proportionately. As the petitioner has come forward to pay the said amount, the said sentence of six months, which is ordered to run consecutively, shall be modified and the same shall run concurrently. If for any reason the petitioner does not pay the cheque amount, as stated supra, within the said period of four weeks, it is made clear that the petitioner shall undergo the entire sentence as awarded by the trial court. 5 With the above observations, all these revisions are disposed of accordingly. -------------- 22.03.2011 Kvsn