THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1859 of 2002 Oral Judgment: On 4.6.2010, when the revision was taken up for hearing, this Court found that notice was not served on the 1st respondent. Hence, this Court directed the petitioner to take out personal notice to the 1st respondent and file proof service. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notice was served on the 1st respondent and also filed proof of service. Now, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner- Accused No.2 in C.C. No. 891 of 1996, dated 3.6.2002. The facts in brief are that the respondent-company filed a private complaint against the petitioner, who is accused No.2 and against some other accused, namely, A1,A3 to A7 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent alleged in the said complaint that Accused No.1, which is a company is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products and the petitioner herein is the managing director of the said company. According to the respondent, it supplied various materials to accused No.1-company under various invoices marked as Exs.P14 to P21 to an extent of Rs.10,17,180.59 ps. It is stated that the accused company issued three cheques bearing Nos. 0313986, 0313992 and 0313994, dated 30.7.96, 20.8.96 and 26.8.96 for a sum of Rs. 2,06,747, Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs. 1,28,828.66, respectively towards part payment. When the respondent company presented the same for clearance on 5.10.1996, they were returned with an endorsement ‘exceeds arrangements’. The complainant, after giving statutory legal notice, filed a private complaint before the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against A1 to A7 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to award compensation to it. The said complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 891 of 1996. However, the case against Accused Nos.3,4 and 6 has been split up and numbered as a separate C.C. In so far as accused Nos. 5 and 7 are concerned, they were discharged from the said case. The trial Court tried the case in so far as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. The complainant in order to prove its case, examined one Sri A. Govinda Rao, its representative as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P37. On behalf of the accused, D.W. 1 was examined and Exs. D1 to D4 were marked. Having analyzed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner-A2 and the company-A1 are found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, it convicted the petitioner-A2 of the said offence and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Since the 1st accused being a company, the trial Court directed it to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, it directed pettiioner-A2 to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in addition to the sentence imposed on him. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed Criminal Appeal before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the accused, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions and on perusing the judgments impugned in this revision, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the Courts below have rightly found the petitioner herein guilty of the offence and accordingly convicted him of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the petitioner-accused as confirmed by the lower appellate Court, does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of two weeks, i.e. from 29.11.2002 to 12.12.2002 and while taking into consideration the age of the petitioner-accused, I feel it a fit case wherein the sentence of imprisonment to suffer S.I. for six months imposed on the petitioner- accused for the offence in question can be reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, while dismissing this revision, the sentence of imprisonment to suffer S.I. for six months imposed on the petitioner- Accused No.2 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner-accused. The fine amount, shall remain undisturbed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) Date: 04.08.2010 pnb