THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1860 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 On a complaint filed by the first respondent herein the petitioner was tried by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.81 of 2001 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and one more witness was examined on his behalf as P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 to P.8 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner one witness was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. The trial court, after full fledged trial, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation to the first respondent. The said judgment dated 23.07.2003 was questioned by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2003 and the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by his judgment dated 12.12.2003 while confirming the said findings given by the trial court dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached this court and filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner took a hand loan of Rs.1,40,000/- on 03.05.2000 from the first respondent and after repeated demands to return the same, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 28.06.2000 for Rs.30,000/- drawn on Vysya Bank Limited, Himayathnagar Branch, Hyderabad towards part payment of the said debt. When the said cheque was presented in State Bank of India, Mukaranjahi Road, Nampally, for collection, the same was retuned by the drawers bank under a memo dated 30.06.2000 with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Hence, the first respondent after following the due procedure laid down under the law filed the complaint. 3 Heard. 4 The appeal was dismissed on 12.12.2003 and the petitioner was taken into custody on the say day and he came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this court on 18.12.2003 after admitting this revision. So it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about a week. 5 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of seven days, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was made roaming from one court to another for all these years, and inasmuch as the sentence imposed on the petitioner is only six months, this court is of the opinion that a lenient view may be taken. 6 Accordingly, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone. Excepting the above modification this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 28.10.2010 Kvsn