THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1276 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.128 of 2001 dated 11.09.2002 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the said appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in C.C.No.273 of 1999 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 The facts in brief are that the complainant who was examined as P.W.1 was doing cement business and the petitioner purchased cement worth Rs.49,000/- from P.W.1 on credit basis. On demand made by P.W.1 the petitioner issued Ex.P.1 cheque for Rs.36,000/- towards partial discharge of the said debt and when P.W.1 presented the said cheque the same was dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter P.W.1 got issued a statutory legal notice and after following due procedure laid down by law, he filed the complaint against the petitioner herein for the alleged offence. 3 The trial court after analysing the entire evidence available on record found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. As against the said judgment dated 14.02.2001 passed by the trial court the first respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2001, and the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 11.09.2002 dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved thereby the accused before the trial court preferred this revision. 4 Heard. 5 The appeal was dismissed on 11.09.2002 and this court granted bail on 13.09.2002. Thus the accused must have been in jail for at least four days. 6 In view of the fact that the said offence is of the year 1999 and as the accused was made roaming form one court to another for all these years, and since the accused was in jail for about four days, this court is of the view that trauma which the accused has suffered all these years itself is a sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 7 Hence, in order to meet the ends of justice, this court, without going into the merits of the case, holds that the said sentence of six months simple imprisonment imposed by the appellate court can be reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 8 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. --------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010