THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.581 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 15-05-2002, passed in Crl.A.No.95 of 1999 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, wherein while disposing of the appeal the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, imposed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C.No.275 of 1996, was modified to simple imprisonment for a period of three months, keeping the fine imposed intact with default sentence. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner- accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- from the 1st respondent herein and executed three promissory notes. He issued a cheque, dated 10.10.1995, for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards part payment of the debt due and when the said cheque was presented for realization, the same was bounced with an endorsement ‘account closed on 17-10-1995’. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’), 1st respondent- complainant filed the complaint and the same was taken on file by the trial Court. 3. During the course of trial, 1st respondent-complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 4. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, disposed of the said appeal modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 5. Heard both sides. 6. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner-accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, however with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 1995 and almost 15 years have passed and he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of one week subsequent to the disposal of the Criminal Appeal. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-accused, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 8. With the above modification, this, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 15th July, 2010 Tsy