THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C.No.1178 of 2004 ORDER This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 15.07.2004, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram in Crl.A.No.10 of 2002, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, in C.C.No.315 of 1999, was confirmed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner/accused purchased HOT variety prawns from the second respondent/complainant on 20.06.1999 under weighment slip-Ex.P1, worth Rs.2,05,067/-, and he paid a sum of Rs.90,058/- to the complainant promising to pay the balance amount later. On demand, the accused gave a cheque, dated 09.08.1999, for a sum of Rs.1,15,009/- to the complainant. 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 23.10.1999, the accused neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. Hence, he filed a complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered as C.C.No.315 of 1999 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 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 four months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.10 of 2002. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal confirming the conviction and sentence 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 16.07.2004, 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 II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram. From this, it is clear that he was in jail from 15.07.2004 to 17.07.2004 i.e., for a period of about three 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 four months rigorous 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