THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1788 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein was tried by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle in C.C.No.12 of 2008 for the offences punishable under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420 of IPC. During the course of trial, the complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. On behalf of the petitioner D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. Having analysed the said evidence, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. Petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 08.02.2010 passed by the trial court by way of Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2010 and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated 30.09.2010 dismissed the said appeal in so far as the offence punishable under section 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, however, acquitted the petitioner of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached this court and filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner took hand loan of Rs.90,000/- from the 2nd respondent herein and in discharge of the said debt, he issued a cheque bearing No.239862 dated 05.09.2005 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards part payment and when the 2nd respondent presented the said cheque into the bankth same was dishonoured. After following the due procedure laid down under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the 2nd respondent filed the complaint before the trial court. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference since two courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence, however, he requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 5 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is in jail from 30.09.2010 to till date i.e. after the dismissal of his appeal and also in view of the fact that the sentence imposed on the petitioner was only simple imprisonment for three months, and also keeping in view of the age of the petitioner this court is inclined to take a lenient view. 6 Accordingly, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for three months imposed by both the courts below on the petitioner is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 05.10.2010 Registry to dispatch the judgment Immediately. B/o Kvsn