HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1489 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.331 of 2002 dated 01.08.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of Six months and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.462 of 2000 dated 11.11.2002. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner-accused issued a cheque bearing No.754452 dated 10.01.2000 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards payment of loan amount due to the 1st respondent-complainant and when the said cheque was presented for realization, the same was bounced for want of funds. 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, on behalf of the 1st respondent-complainant P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D7 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 as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have rightly applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner-accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also not shown me anything, which would discredit the evidence. Hence the conviction passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court against the revision petitioner-accused is upheld. I see no merit in the revision. As regards the sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner had undergone substantive sentence of imprisonment and hence the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. The appeal was dismissed on 01.08.2003 and immediately the petitioner was taken into custody. Thereafter, in this revision, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court on 25.09.2003. Since the occurrence took place as early as in the year 2000 and the revision petitioner had already undergone the sentence of about two months, this Court is of the view that it is suffice to reduce the sentence of simple imprisonment of Six months, as was imposed by the Courts below, to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against him. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 19-08-2010 Gsn.