THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1725 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioners herein were tried by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnur for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.123 of 1998. During the course of trial, the complainant got himself examined as P.W-1 and one K.Narasimhamurthy was examined as P.W-2 on his behalf and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked. On behalf of the petitioners herein-accused, none was examined but Ex.D-1 was marked. The learned Magistrate having considered the said evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, sentenced the first petitioner-A-1 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, but, however, released A-2 by admonishing her. The learned Magistrate further directed both the accused to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the complainant towards compensation. The same was questioned by the petitioners by filing Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2000 before the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, who by his judgment, dated 12.11.2003, dismissed the said appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the trial Court. The brief facts of the case are that both the accused jointly borrowed certain amount from the complainant and executed promissory notes and that, in settlement of the said debt, they issued a cheque to the complainant, which, when presented in the bank for collection, was returned with endorsement “insufficient funds”. Subsequent thereto, the complainant issued a legal notice to both the accused calling upon them to pay the amount due under the said dishonoured cheque, but they did not repay the same. Hence, the said private complaint by the complainant. Heard both sides and perused the impugned judgments of the Courts below. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the said findings arrived at by both the Courts below are correct and do not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 18th November 2010 DR