HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.100 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge for Trial of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in Crl.A.No.273 of 2002 dated 22.01.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, C.C.No.550 of 2000 dated 26.08.2002. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner- accused issued a cheque dated 10.06.2000 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards repayment of the debt due to the 2nd respondent-complainant and when the said cheque was presented for realization, the same was bounced with an endorsement ‘account was closed’. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the 2nd respondent-complainant filed the complaint and the same was taken on file by the trial Court. During the course of trial, on behalf of the 2nd respondent-complainant P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned VI-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner-accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2000 and almost 10 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner must have repented for what he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of one week subsequent to the dismissal of the criminal appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-accused, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 15-07-2010 Gsn.