HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.978 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein-sole accused was tried by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.112 of 2002 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.8 were marked. But, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Magistrate, after analyzing the entire evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the said offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for four months, by judgment dated 01.04.2003. As against the said judgment, the accused filed Crl.A.No.181 of 2003 on the file of the VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, and the learned Sessions Judge, after going through the evidence and perusing the judgment of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, by judgment dated 02.07.2003. 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. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant, 1st respondent herein, filed a private complaint in C.C.No.112 of 2002 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act alleging that the accused availed credit card facility and in discharge of part of the amount, he issued a cheque for Rs.6,000/- on 25.08.2001. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The plea of the accused is of total denial. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Having looked into the evidence and also perused the judgments passed by the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, I see no merits in this revision. 6. However, it is a fact that the alleged offence has taken place in the year 2001 and after dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 02.07.2003, he was taken into custody and thereafter this Court granted bail to him by an order dated 14.07.2003. Thus, he has undergone a sentence of 14 days. In the light of the above, this Court takes a lenient view in the matter and reduces the sentence of imprisonment to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. 7. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th July, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.978 of 2003 (Dismissed) 29th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 978 of 2003 DATE:29.07.2010 Between: M. Bhakthavasthalam … Petitioner And Standard Chartered bank, Bankcard Customer Service Centre, S.D.Road, Secunderabad and another … Respondents