THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.458 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried by the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in C.C.No.182 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. On behalf of the accused, none was examined and Exs.D-1 to D-12 were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The same was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, who by his judgment, dated 28.03.2003, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentenced imposed on the accused by the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent filed a complaint stating that it is a registered firm dealing with finance business. While so, the petitioner-accused in order to purchase a bus borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in the name of his worker on 02.09.1992 and stood as a guarantor of the said debt along with another person by name Mannava Koteswara Rao and executed an agreement on 02.09.1992. As per the said agreement, when the complainant demanded to pay the instalments, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.921008 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Main Branch, Guntur, for a sum of Rs.78,000/- but when the same was presented it for clearance with the banker, it was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 20.09.1996, was sent by the complainant to the accused demanding the payment of the amount under the dishonoured cheque, but the accused did not pay the amount. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the complainant. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference on merits, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was only a surety and was in jail for three days. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record. Admittedly, the petitioner stood as a guarantor for the debt borrowed by one Mallampati Sambasiva Rao. Further, immediately, after pronouncement of the judgment by the lower appellate Court on 28.03.2003, he was sent to jail and was released by virtue of the bail granted by the trial Court on 31.03.2003. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner has undergone a sentence of about three days and that, he only stood as a guarantor for the debt borrowed by another person from the first respondent-complainant. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 17th February 2011 DR