THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1203 OF 2001 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court having examined the complainant as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.6 found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to pay an amount of Rs.11,825/-, which is the amount covered by the cheque that was dishonoured, to the respondent towards compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. In appeal the same was confirmed. Hence this revision. 2 This court admitted this revision on 21.02.2002. Brief facts are that the complainant is a partnership firm carrying on business in readymade garments at Secunderabad. Te petitioner is proprietor of M/s.Satya Sai Dresses at Jagitial and a customer purchasing garments from the complainant. In the court of their business, the petitioner purchased garments worth Rs.21,825/- and issued a cheque dated 10.02.1998 towards the bill amount. When the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. Subsequently the complainant issued a statutory notice in response to which the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant leaving the balance amount of Rs.11,825/-. Thereafter the complainant filed the present case. As stated supra, the trial court after analyzing the entire evidence available on record found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and imposed the punishment accordingly. The petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 13.04.2001 passed by the trial court before the appellate court by way of Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2001, which was dismissed. 3 Having gone through the evidence on record and the judgments of both the courts below and having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this court is of the view that the said sentence imposed by the courts below is perfectly justified and no interference is called for. 4 Accordingly, I see no merits in this revision and thus the same is dismissed. -------------- 08.07.2010 Kvsn