THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C.No.1095 of 2004 ORDER This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 02.07.2004, passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in Crl.A.No.18 of 2003, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad, East and North Ranga Reddy District, in C.C.No.1281 of 1999, dated 01.02.2003, was modified. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner/accused approached the first respondent/complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.77,000/- in the month of December, 1998 promising to repay the same in March, 1999 and he issued a cross cheque, bearing No.086313, dated 11.03.1999, for Rs.77,000/-. When the said cheque was presented with the Bank, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Though the complainant got issued a legal notice, dated 18.06.1999, to the petitioner, it was returned with an endorsement ‘party continuously not found for seven days’. Hence, he filed a complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered as C.C.No.1281 of 1999 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked on behalf of the first respondent- complainant. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of the petitioner/accused. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,in default he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.18 of 2003. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal modifying the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months simple imprisonment besides the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Heard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it is not a fit case to acquit the petitioner, but a lenient view can be taken in the case of the petitioner. 7. This Court while admitting this revision on 05.07.2004, granted bail to the petitioner on his executing a personal bond for Rs.5,000/-with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, East and North, Ranga Reddy District. From this, it is clear that he was in jail from 02.07.2004 to 06.07.2004 i.e., for a period of about five days. In those circumstances and in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court can be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is reduced from six months simple imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:03.02.2011 sj