HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1426 OF 2004 Date: 20-07-2011 Between: K. Pentaiah Mudiraj. - - - Petitioner/ Accused. Versus S. Dara Singh and The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Complainant/ Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1426 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- Accused against judgment, dated 17-08-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. The Petitioner (for short, ‘the Accused’) was prosecuted in Calender Case No.1058 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’). After due trial, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, West and South, Ranga Reddy District, convicted the accused under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, whereas, against the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2003 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, who dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court vide judgment, dated 17-08-2004 and challenging the same, the Accused has preferred this Revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent – State. 4. The prosecution version in brief is that the accused is known to the complainant since the last 10 years prior to the filing of the complaint and due to the said acquaintance the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant under two pro-notes dated 06-05-1997 and 16-07-1997 respectively, each for Rs.50,000/- and promised to pay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and also passed receipts acknowledging the debt and the father of the accused stood as guarantor. Later, the complainant demanded the accused several times to repay the loan amount. But, the accused avoided the same on one pretext or the other and at last the accused got issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/-, dated 25-03-1999 drawn on SBI SEIE Branch, Katedan in partial discharge of his total debt. The complainant presented the said cheque on 15-03-1999 and again on 14-06- 1999 in SBI Gowliguda Branch and it was dishonoured for the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’ and the same was intimated to the complainant on 16-06-1999. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 28-06-1999 and the accused received the said notice on 06-07-1999 and failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, consequently, the complaint was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I. Act. 5. After arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing for the accused has not pressed the main prayer contenting that the accused paid the entire due amount to the complainant and confined her arguments to the extent of reduction of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence in favour of the accused. 6. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court gave concurrent findings, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that he has paid the entire due amount to the complainant is not supported by any evidence, this Court is of the view that the merits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated at this stage. 7. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 1997 and for all these years the accused suffered humiliation by attending various Courts in connection with this case and facing the ordeal of conviction and sentences and loosing valuable part of his life and incurring lot of expenditure. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some mercy towards the accused. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the Accused by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as confirmed by the appellate Court is further confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is modified and reduced to Simple Imprisonment of four (4) months. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused shall be given as set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. With the above noted modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 20h July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 65 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1426 OF 2004 July, 20, 2011 DSH