THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1247 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada in C.C.No.105 of 2000 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked on behalf of the complainant. No oral evidence was let in by the petitioner, but Exs.D.1 to D.6 were marked on his behalf. Having analysed the said evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Cheque amount) to the complainant towards compensation under section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. The said judgment dated 17th day of April 2002 passed by the trial court was questioned in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2002 and the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada by his judgment dated 25th day of August 2003 dismissed the same. The same is questioned in this revision. 2 The case of the complainant is that the petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on 20.02.1998 and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a. Subsequently the petitioner made a part payment of Rs.15,000/- on 04.05.1998. Later the petitioner issued a cheque dated 09.12.1999 for Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of the amount due, drawn on United Bank of India, Bhaskar Nagar, Kakinada. The said cheque when presented for collection was dishonoured for the reason ‘account closed’. Thereafter the complainant after following the due procedure laid down under the law i.e. issuance of statutory notice etc., filed the complaint. 3 Heard. 4 Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the entire material available on record, this court is of the view that the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence as he failed to honour the cheque which he issued to the complainant in discharge of an enforceable debt and as such this revision is devoid of any merit and deserves no consideration. 5 However, taking the fact that the petitioner was in jail for about a week, this court takes a lenient view and accordingly reduces the said sentence of six months to that of the period which the petitioner had already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 12.08.2010 Kvsn