IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Criminal Revision Case No.359 of 2004 Date:28.01.2011 Between:- Laddika Lakshmi Venkata Nagesh .. Petitioner A N D Pasupuleti Siva Shankar and another. .. Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER: There is no representation for the revision petitioner. This revision is laid by the de facto complainant impugning the judgment of the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2000. 2. The revision petitioner filed a complaint against the sole accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act). Through the judgment dated.17.08.2000 in C.C. No.54 of 2000, the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. She sentenced the accused to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Six (6) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with appropriate default sentence. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2000. Confirming the conviction recorded by the learned trial judge, the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada reduced the sentence by confining the same to fine only. The simple imprisonment recorded by the trial court was set aside. 4. Aggrieved by the modification of the sentence recorded by the appellate court, the complainant preferred the present revision. As already pointed out no one is representing the revision petitioner. 5. The learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada has assigned reasons for modifying the sentence recorded by the trial Court. I am afraid that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. This revision is found to be devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Criminal Revision case is dismissed. _________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J 28th January, 2011 KSP