HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Revision Case No.1529 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner herein was tried by II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.386 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the Act’). During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the complainant/the second respondent and Exs.P-1 to P-14 were marked. Having considered the said evidence, the learned Magistrate by his judgment dated 22/12/1999 came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein committed the charged offence and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Against the judgment dated 22/12/1999, the petitioner/accused preferred Crl.A.No.2 of 2000, and the II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal the petitioner/accused filed this revision case. The brief facts of the case are that the accused took a hand loan of Rs.2,95,000/- from the complainant in three instalments i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- on 10/04/1996, Rs.40,000/- on 18/04/1996 and Rs.55,000/- on 26/04/1996 to improve his automobile workshop and executed a promissory note also. He issued a cheque dated 08/09/1998 for Rs.2,95,000/- towards repayment of the loan amount. When it was presented, the same was dis-honoured for want of funds. Thereafter, after following due procedure under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act, the complainant filed the complaint in C.C.No.386 of 1998. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgments impugned in this revision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner issued the cheque in lieu of a legally enforceable debt and on presentation, the same was dis-honoured and thereafter, the respondent after following the procedure contemplated under Section 138 of the Act, filed the complaint. The finding arrived at by the Courts below, in my considered view, is perfectly justified and no interference is called for. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, has submitted that the complainant i.e., the second respondent herein filed a suit, and the same was decreed, and the properties of the petitioner also were attached. Taking this fact into consideration and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and he was in jail for about ten days, this Court takes a lenient view. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court is reduced to that of the period of sentence already undergone by the accused. With the above modification of the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 26th March, 2010 SKM