HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL. REVISION CASE No. 896 OF 2002 Thursday, the Fifth Day of August, Two Thousand and Ten Between Navarathan Kumar Petitioner AND Doongarchand Srisrimal and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein was tried by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 538 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, complainant himself was examined as PW-1 and Exs. P-1 to P-14 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in. Having assessed the said oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment thereof, to further suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, by his judgment dated 20.2.2001. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioner by filing Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2001 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial court, had dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 3.7.2002. The same is questioned in this Revision Case. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the respondent herein is engaged in cloth business. The petitioner herein approached the respondent and made him believe that he can supply cloth material worth of Rs.10.00 lakhs and, as such, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs towards advance and when the petitioner herein failed to supply the cloth material, the respondent demanded him to refund the amount. Thereupon, the petitioner herein issued two cheques bearing Nos.004199 and 004198 for Rs.4.00 lakhs each dated 8.7.1999 drawn on Mahaveer Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Siddiambar Bazar, Hyderabad in discharge of the liability. The said cheques, on presentation, were bounced for want of sufficient funds, twice. It is further stated that though the notice got issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount was received by him, he did not pay the amount. Hence, the respondent herein filed the complaint before the court below. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also going through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case for interference. Apparently, from the evidence it appears that there is legally enforceable debt and in discharge of said legally enforceable debt only, the cheques in question had been issued. Hence, I do not see any merit in the Revision. However, on dismissal of the appeal the petitioner was taken into custody and he was in jail for some time. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for some time and also the fact that the suit filed by the first respondent is decreed, this court intends to take a lenient view. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months is reduced to that the period already undergone. With this modification in the sentence of imprisonment the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment in all other aspects. _____________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada August 5, 2010 MAS