THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1961 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 9.11.2004 made in Crl.A.No.82 of 2003 by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The case of the complainant is as follows: The petitioner-accused borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant as a hand loan at Ponnur in the presence of P.W.3-T. Anjibabu and one S. Seetharamaiah. Assuring repayment, the petitioner-accused issued a cheque bearing No.274031 drawn on UCO Bank, Athili, in favour of the complainant and directed the complainant to present the said cheque for collection after completion of one month, if the amount is not discharged as promised by him. As the petitioner failed to repay the said loan amount within one month, the complainant presented the said cheque for collection, but the same was dishonoured. After following the procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant made a complaint. The same was taken cognizance by the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur and numbered as C.C.No.102 of 2001. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for four months. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.82 of 2003 before the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner-accused filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the offence is of the year 2000. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the conviction recorded by the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of 16 (sixteen) days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. But however, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of four months imposed against the petitioner-accused by the Courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 31st March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1961 of 2004 31.3.2011