THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1701 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.255 of 2002 dated 12.11.2003 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad in C.C.No.894 of 2000 for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. 2 Facts in brief are that the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs.10,000/- towards the goods supplied to him. The said cheque when duly presented to the Bank, was returned for the reason ‘insufficient funds’. Therefore, the complainant got issued a statutory legal notice to the accused i.e. petitioner and after having waited for the statutory period of 15 days after service of notice to enable the petitioner to pay the amount, filed the present complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. 3 The trial court having analysed the entire evidence both oral and documentary found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. As against the said judgment dated 22.07.2002 passed by the trial court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2002 and the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as stated supra, dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 4 Heard. 5 The appeal was dismissed on 12.11.2002 and this court granted bail on 15.11.2002. Thus the accused was in jail for a period of five days. 6 In view of the fact that the said offence is of the year 2000 and as the accused was made roaming form one court to another for all these years, this court is of the view that trauma which the accused has suffered all these years itself is a sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 7 Hence, in order to meet the ends of justice, this court, without going into the merits of the case, holds that the said sentence of three months simple imprisonment can be reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 8 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. --------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010