THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2003 ORDER This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 24.06.2003, passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.219 of 2002, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.404 of 1998, dated 26.06.2002, was confirmed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the second respondent- complainant on 23.02.1997 promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed two promissory notes for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each in favour of the complainant. To discharge the said amount, the petitioner issued a cheque, dated 30.03.1998, for a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- to the complainant and on presentation of the same, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the petitioner, who in turn gave reply denying his liability to pay the amount. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the police and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.404 of 1998 for the offence punishable 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.P.1 to P.9 were marked on behalf of the 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 accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, he shall undergo for a period of six months simple imprisonment. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioner by filing Crl.A.No.219 of 2002. The learned Sessions Judge having reassessed the entire evidence dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. The same is questioned by the petitioner/accused by filing the present revision. 5. Heard. 6. This Court, while admitting the revision on 26.06.2003, granted bail to the petitioner. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 18.11.2010, Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to settle the matter with the second respondent, but as the second respondent is not residing in India and left for USA, petitioner is unable to get the matter settled. In the light of the said submission, this Court directed him to serve notice on the second respondent by way of substituted service publishing in ‘Eenadu’ daily newspaper. Accordingly, learned counsel got the notice published in the said newspaper and filed proof thereof. Despite the same, the second respondent neither appeared nor is there any representation made on her behalf. 7. In those circumstances, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the cheque amount to a registered Charitable Institution. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel has produced a receipt, dated 11.12.2010, given by the Needs Effective Welfare Society with Registration No.286/1989, establishing the fact that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the said institution. 8. As the name of the said charitable Institution is strange, this Court looked into the brochure given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the brochure, it appears that the said institution was established by one K. Balakondaiah, IPS, retired Deputy Inspector General of Police and it is taking up so many welfare activities by providing funds etc., to the physically handicapped persons. 9. In the light of the said payment made by the petitioner to the said charitable institution and the petitioner was in jail for a period of four days i.e., from 24.06.2003 to 27.06.2003, this Court is of the view that the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed on him by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:16.12.2010 sj