THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.652 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner was tried by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.127 of 2000 for the offences punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 The facts in brief are that the petitioner became due of an amount of Rs.83,264-55 ps to the complainant in the business transaction and in discharge of the same the petitioner issued six cheques vide Exs.P.1 to P.6. The complainant presented the said cheques for collection into his banker, but the same were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter the complainant got issued a statutory legal notice to the petitioner demanding him to pay the amount covered under the said cheques. The petitioner got issued a reply to the said notice issued by the complainant stating that he paid the amount to the complainant but did not pay any amount to the complainant. 3 In order to substantiate his claim, the complainant got examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15. On behalf of the petitioner D.W.1 was examined andExs.D.1 to D.11 were marked. 4 The trial court having assessed the said evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly by its judgment dated 31.01.2002 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and alto to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards fine, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2002 and the learned I additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by his judgment dated 22.03.2004 dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 5 It appears, the notices are not served on the respondent. However, as this court is not allowing this appeal, this court is of the view that the said non service of notice on the private respondent is not fatal in deciding the case. 6 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and he fairly conceded there are no merits in this revision and that the judgments of the courts below need no interference, however, requested the court take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 6 In the light of the said submission, this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 22.03.2004 and the petitioner was taken into custody immediately. It is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted on 05.04.2004, the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than two weeks. Since the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is only for a period of six months and inasmuch as the petitioner was already in jail for a period of two weeks, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months to that of the period which the petitioner had already undergone. 7 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. --------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn