THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1000 of 2004 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the private complaint filed by the first respondent herein stating that the petitioner herein issued six separate cheques towards the repayment of the loan borrowed by him and when the same were presented with the banker-Vysya Bank, Tanuku for the purpose of collection, they were returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”, attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, has numbered it as C.C.No.429 of 1998. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant got himself examined as P.W-1 and examined P.W-2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-18. On behalf of the accused, D.W-1 was examined, but no documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, by his judgment, dated 08.01.2001, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and further, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation to the complainant i.e., a sum of Rs.5,000/- each for six cheques and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses. Against the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, who by his judgment, dated 21.06.2004, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner-accused approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for about two days week and he has paid the compensation amount of Rs.35,000/- to the first respondent herein-complainant as ordered by both the Courts below. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court, while admitting this Revision on 22.06.2004, ordered to issue notice to the first respondent. As of now, nearly six years lapsed, but the first respondent-complainant was not yet served with the notice. Even the petitioner did not take any steps to serve the notice served on the first respondent. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record. The impugned judgment was pronouncement by the lower appellate Court on 21.06.2004 and immediately, the petitioner herein-accused was sent to jail and was released by virtue of the bail granted by the trial Court on 22.06.2004. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner herein-accused was lodged in jail for about two days. Further, it appears that he has also paid an amount of Rs.35,000/- to the first respondent herein-complainant towards compensation. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposed on the petitioner herein-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 17th February 2011 DR