THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1701 of 2005 Date: 20.10.2011 Between: Reddy Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner/ Accused AND 1. Paladugu Parasurmaiah 2. The State of A.P. rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1701 of 2005 ORDER: The revision petitioner-accused sought for a lenient view against him, in view of the first respondent- complainant obtained a civil decree against him. 2. The first respondent laid a case against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (‘the Act’ for short) alleging that the revision petitioner issued a cheque under Ex.P.2 and that the cheque bounced when it was presented for payment. The trial Court recorded a conviction against the revision petitioner/accused and sentenced him to Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for a period of six months and fine of ` 5000/-. The appeal preferred by the revision petitioner was dismissed in respect of the conviction as well as the sentence recorded by the trial Court. 3. Sri V.R. Avula, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused did not question the conviction recorded by the trial Court. He did not contend that the cheque was not issued in connection with a subsisting debt. He did not claim that the accused did not issue the cheque. His contention is that lenient view be taken against the accused and confine the sentence of imprisonment to the imprisonment already undergone. As an extenuating circumstance, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the suit laid by the complainant on the basis of the cheque was decreed and that the same is liable to be executed against the accused, so much so, the criminal liability deserves to be minimized. 4. Sri G. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant, on the other hand, contended that Section 138 of the Act contemplates punishment of fine to a tune of double the cheque amount and that the trial Court and the appellate Court had already taken a lenient view by imposing S.I. for a period of six months and fine of ` 5,000/-. 5. There is no scope to consider the special merits of the case such as whether the complainant established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This is a case the accused conceded the prosecution case. The limited question is as to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against the revision petitioner/accused. Section 138 of the Act envisages punishment up to an extent of two years or fine or both. Imposition of imprisonment and fine conjointly is not mandatory u/s.138 of the Act. Be that as it may, the trial Court sentenced the accused to S.I. for a period of six months, apart from imposing fine. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has not questioned the fine portion of the sentence. He submitted that the accused was in jail for about a week to 10 days and that the imprisonment already undergone by the accused may be treated as sufficient sentence, apart from continuing the fine imposed by the trial Court. 6. The accused is aged about 46 years old. It, indeed, is not an extenuating circumstance regarding the sentence to be imposed against the accused. At the same time, admittedly, the first respondent/complainant obtained a civil decree against the petitioner in respect of Ex.P.1 pro-note and Ex.P.2 cheque. Where the complainant had already obtained a decree from a competent civil Court which he is likely to execute to recover the amount due under the cheque, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that a lenient view deserves to be accorded in favour of the accused. 7. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone, maintaining the fine and the compensation, as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court intact. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed regarding the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court against the accused. The sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months, as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, is modified to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. The fine amount and the compensation thereon, as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, are maintained. __________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.10.2011 Isn