THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.510 OF 2001 DATED: 29-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioners questioning the judgment, dated 13-01-2000, passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C.No.386 of 1997, as modified by the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad in Crl.A.No.59 of 2000, dated 02-05-2001. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner herein-A1 issued a cheque bearing No.069839 for Rs.30,45,000/- in favour of the 1st respondent herein towards repayment of the principal amount of Rs.29,00,000/- and interest amount of Rs.1,45,000/- with a covering letter, dated 23-10-1996, which was singed by the 2nd petitioner and on presentation of the said cheque, it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Therefore, complainant-1st respondent herein got issued telegraphic notices on 31- 10-1996 to all the accused. 2nd petitioner-A2 for himself and for 1st petitioner-A1 replied through their advocate on 13-11-1996 denying the issuance of the cheque. Therefore, 1st respondent herein filed a complaint before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No.386 of 1997. 3. Having analyzed the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the 2nd petitioner herein was guilty of the charged offence, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- , in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months; 1st petitioner-A1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default A2 representing A1 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A3 to A5 were found not guilty and accordingly acquitted. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners herein-A1 and A2 preferred Crl.A.No.59 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, and the learned Judge while concurring with the said finding of the trial Court, however reduced the said sentence of simple imprisonment from six months to three months imposed against the 2nd petitioner-A2 and set aside the default clause of imprisonment imposed against the 2nd petitioner-A2. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred. 4. Today, when the matter is called, none appeared for the petitioners. Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, would submit that Sri A.Ramanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, died and the other counsel Sri P.Somasekhara Naidu, is not attending the Court as he secured a job elsewhere. He would further submit that he has no objection if the sentence imposed against the 2nd petitioner is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. In view of the same, the said sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is hereby reduced to that of the period already undergone by the him. 5. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th July, 2010 Tsy