THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.399 OF 2002 ORDER: Petitioners herein were tried by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.835 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Act alleging that the petitioners herein-accused obtained a loan of Rs.1,86,000/- with a promise to repay the same and issued a post-dated cheque and on presentation, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficiency of funds’. Therefore, after following the procedure under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act, the 1st respondent herein-complainant filed the complaint in C.C.No.232 of 2001. 3. During the course of trial, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. Having analyzed the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the petitioners were guilty of the charged offence, and accordingly, sentenced the 2nd petitioner-A2 to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the 1st respondent herein-complainant under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. So far as the 1st accused is concerned, as it is a company it was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, the 2nd petitioner-A2 is directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Against the same, petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.119 of 2001 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the learned Judge while concurring with the said finding of the trial Court however reduced the said sentence of simple imprisonment from six months to three months by judgment, dated 26-03- 2002. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners-accused filed this revision. 5. Though notices were sent by the Registry to the 1st respondent herein, the same were not returned served. Hence, heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- was also paid and the petitioners were in jail for a period of about five days. 7. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners paid the said fine amount and he was in jail for five days and the alleged offence took place on 16.08.1996, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the said sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is hereby reduced to that of the period already undergone. Accordingly, while concurring with the findings of the Courts below, the said sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is hereby reduced to that of the period already undergone. 8. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th July, 2010 Tsy