HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.573 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein-sole accused was tried by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.200 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Magistrate, having been satisfied with the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the said offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 ½ month, by judgment dated 02.07.2002. As against the said judgment, the accused filed Crl.A.No.209 of 2002 on the file of the VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offences Cases, Hyderabad, and the learned Sessions Judge, on re-appraisal of both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 02.09.2003. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this revision. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed before the trial court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a chit fund company. The accused became a member of the complainant vide chit series SSC-2 holding ticket No.8 for Rs.2,00,000/-. The subscription is payable in 25 monthly equal instalments. The accused became a successful bidder. As on the date of cause of action, the accused was due a sum of Rs.56,000/-. The accused did not pay the amount for the period from 10.01.1999 to 10.07.1999. In discharge of the said amount, the accused has issued a cheque for the due amount in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was presented to the bank for collection on 10.09.1999, but the same was returned by the bank with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. The said matter was informed to the accused. At the request of the accused, the cheque was again presented to the bank for collection and the same was returned with the same endorsement. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a notice dated 12.10.1999 to the accused calling upon him to pay the amount under the cheque. Since the accused did not comply with the said notice, the complainant filed the present case. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused had intentionally issued the cheque knowing fully well that there was no sufficient amount in his bank account and bouncing of the cheque would attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. The said finding, as confirmed by the appellate court, appears to be justified. Therefore, I see no merits in this revision. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 13th July, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.573 of 2004 (Dismissed) 13th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 573 of 2004 DATE:13.07.2010 Between: N. Mohan Rao … Petitioner And State represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … Respondents