THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1303 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Warangal in Crl.A.No.4 of 2002 dated 04.06.2003 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the said appeal, modified the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal in C.C.No.60 of 1999 from six months rigorous imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. 2 Facts in brief are that the 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint before the trial court against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act alleging that the petitioner has issued cheques in discharge of the loan payable by him to the 1st respondent bank and that when the cheques were presented, the same were bounced for the reason ‘insufficient funds’. After trial the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months. The trial court further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the first respondent towards compensation out of the fine amount. The petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 07.12.2001 passed by the trial court before the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Warangal in Crl.A.No.4 of 2002 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the said appeal, however modified the said sentence as stated supra. 3 Heard. 4 The appeal was dismissed on 04.06.2003 and this court granted bail to the petitioner on 04.09.2003. Thus the petitioner was in jail for a period of three months. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has already served the sentence of two months as imposed by the appellate Court. Hence this court finds no reason to interfere with the said judgment passed by the appellate court and accordingly the same is dismissed since the petitioner had already undergone the said sentence of two months imposed by the appellate court. --------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010