HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL. REVISION CASE No. 572 OF 2004 Wednesday, the Fourth Day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between N.Mohan Rao Petitioner AND The State of A.P., Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: The private respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, had taken cognizance of the said offence and accordingly it was numbered as CC No. 202 of 2000. During the course of trial, on behalf of the respondent herein PW-1 was examined and Exs. P-1 to P-9 were marked. The petitioner has not chosen to examine anybody and also did not choose to file any document. Having analysed the oral and documentary evidence, the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide his judgment 2.7.2002 has held the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The said conviction and sentence was questioned by the petitioner herein by filing Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2002 and the learned VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderbad, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial court, has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner herein who was enrolled as a member by the respondent company, in the chit series SSB Ticket No. 19 for Rs.1.00 lakh payable in twenty five months of equal instalments, had become successful bidder and having drawn the amount, became defaulter in payment of instalmens, for the period from 10.2.1999 to 10.9.1999. In discharge of the said liability, the petitioner issued a cheque for the due amount, which was bounced on presentation for insufficiency of funds. The said cheque was bounced for the second time, presented at the request of the petitioner. It is further stated that even though the petitioner had received the legal notice dated 12.10.1999, issued on behalf of the respondent Company, the amount due was not paid. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the private respondent. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, this court is of the considered view that the court below has rightly concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence. Apparently, as the petitioner was absconding on the day of pronouncement of the judgment, non-bailable warrant was issued and pursuant to the execution of the same, the petitioner was arrested and thereafter this court granted bail on 25.3.2004 and he came out of the jail. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for some time. As the sentence imposed by the courts below is only for a period of three months simple imprisonment and the petitioner was in jail for some time, this court intends to take a lenient view. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment of three months is reduced to that the period already undergone. With this modification in the sentence of imprisonment the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment in all other aspects. _____________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada August 4, 2010 MAS