IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No : 1331 OF 2003 Between: M/s.Acme Spinners Limited and another ..... PETITIONER AND M/s.Corporate Securities and Holding Pvt. Ltd., Punjagutta, Hyderabad ana others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No : 1331 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioners were tried by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.212 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, the Senior Marketing Executive of the 1st respondent- company was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-25 were marked on behalf of the complainant, 1st respondent-company. The 2nd petitioner was examined as D.W.2 and one A.N.Chidamber was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D-1 to D-8 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. Having assessed the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the offence and accordingly, the 1st petitioner-company was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of said fine amount, the 2nd petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The 2nd petitioner was also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months, and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and half month. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioners by filing Criminal Appeal and the same was numbered as Crl.A.No.154 of 2003 on the file of VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Communal Offence Cases, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal, modified the judgment of the trial Court to the extent that instead of sentencing the 2nd petitioner for imprisonment for default of payment of fine by the 1st petitioner-company, the property of the 1st petitioner is directed to be attached. In all other aspects, the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision Case is filed. 2. It is mainly contended by Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that there was no service of notice on the petitioners and according to him, the postman returned the acknowledgment with an endorsement that the petitioner is continuously absent for 7days and hence it cannot be treated as proper service of notice. He further contended that there was an understanding between the parties and accordingly the amount due under the dishonoured cheque has been paid. Under that context, he tried to place reliance on Exs.D-5 and D-6. 3. Despite the fact that the notices are served on the 1st respondent-company, it has not chosen to put in its appearance. 4. Apparently, the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 05-09-2003 and the 2nd petitioner was immediately taken into custody and it is only after bail, which was granted by this Court on 09-09- 2003, he came out of jail. 5. From the above, it is clear that the 2nd petitioner was in jail for about a week. As the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed against each of the petitioners was paid and the 2nd petitioner was in jail for a period of about a week, this Court is of the view that the contention put forth by the learned senior counsel need not be answered and the sentence of four months which has been imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court can be reduced to that of the period he has already undergone. 6. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________ 19th August 2010 kvr