THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1690 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner was tried by the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in C.C.No.454 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of the trial, the respondent/complainant examined P.Ws 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.7. Having analysed the said evidence, the learned Magistrate, by his judgment dated 26th September, 2000 came to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused is guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Challenging the said judgment, he filed Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2000 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. But, however, the same was dismissed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment, dated 10th November, 2003. The same is questioned in this Criminal Revision Case. The brief facts of the case are that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant and executed a pronote undertaking to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. On the demand made by the complainant on 03.04.1999, the accused went to the complainant’s house and issued Cheque Bearing No.647519 for Rs.1,20,000/- in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the above pronote. Believing the words of the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque in Indian Bank, Gujjanagundla for collection, which was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. On knowing the said fact, on 24.01.1999, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused, to which, the accused kept quiet. Hence, the complaint. Heard. Having analysed the record and the said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, this Court is of the view that apparently the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 clearly establish that the petitioner/accused issued the cheque in question, and on presentation the same was bounced, which clearly attracts the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, I see no merits in this Criminal Revision Case. However, having regard to the facts of the case and as the alleged offence is of the year 1999 and the petitioner was in jail for some time, this Court takes a lenient view and reduce the said sentence of imprisonment to that of the period already undergone. Except the above modification, in all other aspects the Criminal Revision Case Revision is dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 9th September, 2010 bud