THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.754 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment made in Crl.A.No.36 of 1999 dated 12.6.2002 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad confirming conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.118 of 1992 dated 18.7.1994 on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The respondent-complainant filed complaint under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner- Accused (for short ‘the accused’) alleging that the Accused approached him and obtained hand loan of Rs.40,000/- by executing a demand promissory note dated 10.4.1991 agreeing to repay the same with 24% per annum and in spite of repeated requests and demands, the accused failed to repay the same and ultimately, the Accused issued a cheque bearing No.335797 dated 15.10.1991 for Rs.40,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Khairtabad Branch, Hyderabad and when the cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned with endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ and thereafter though the complainant issued statutory notice within 15 days, the Accused having received it, failed to repay the cheque amount. For the complainant, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. For the Accused, D.W.1 was examined. On the consideration of the matter, the trial Court held the accused guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months whereas being aggrieved by the judgment, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.36 of 1999 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who on considering the matter, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and aggrieved by that, the present revision is filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner- accused that the accused tried to clear the amount and get the matter compounded, but the complainant was not available, therefore this Court by its order dated 18.11.2010 directed the Station House Officer, Mehdipatnam Police Station, Hyderabad to serve notice on the complainant, but still there was no response and has requested to give a direction to deposit the amount before the Magistrate concerned. Further the learned counsel has relied upon a decision in SUBHASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[1] whereunder the Supreme Court under similar circumstances held that the sentence imposed could be reduced to the period of detention already undergone by the Accused therein by enhancing the compensation awarded by the concerned trial Court. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to uphold the claim of the petitioner-Accused. It is pertinent to note here that the case was filed before the trial Court in the year 1992 and consequently the same was disposed of and then the corresponding appeal was preferred and it was also disposed of and consequently this revision has been preferred and only before this Court, necessary measures have been made for the payment of the amount. Virtually, the complainant has been made to suffer a lot for more than a decade. Further, it is also to be considered that the Accused has been making all his efforts to compound the offence by paying the amount due to the complainant, but he has not been able to succeed in his attempts. Further, by virtue of Section 138 of N.I. Act, the offence can be compounded by imposing fine of twice the cheque amount. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Accused is reduced to the period of detention already undergone by him with a direction to the Accused to deposit twice the cheque amount before the Magistrate concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order towards compensation payable to the complainant and in default of it, he is liable to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The revision is accordingly disposed of. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 18.7.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.952 of 2004 27.6.2011 [1] 2005(2) DCR 413