THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1381 of 2001 DATED: 07-04-2010 ORDER: On the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, petitioners herein were tried by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C.No.12 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The trial Court having been satisfied with the evidence let in by the 2nd respondent herein found the petitioners guilty of the said offence and as per the trial Court’s order the 1st petitioner, which is a company, was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and the 2nd petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the said company, was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. In addition to that, the trial Court awarded a compensation of Rs.2,38,458.65ps to be paid to the 2nd respondent. As against the said judgment of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, dated 07-03-2001, petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.115 of 2001 and the learned Sessions Judge while holding that the petitioners are guilty of the said offence, modified the said sentence as follows: 3. He confirmed the fine amount of Rs.5000/- imposed on the 1st petitioner, but insofar as the 2nd petitioner herein is concerned, he reduced the said sentence of one year to six months, set aside the fine amount and reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.2,38,458.65 ps to Rs.1,62,823.05 ps. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 4. The brief facts are that the accused took supplies of stainless steel, worth Rs.3,65,000/- from the complainant and to discharge his liability, the accused had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards part payment of the said amount. But, after issuing the cheque the accused paid part of the amount covered under the cheque and for the remaining amount he agreed to pay interest at the rate of 3% p.m. A2 had also addressed letters to the complainant, dated 26-03-1997 and 10-03-1997, assuring arrangement of money under the cheque. When the cheque was presented on 07-05-1997 it was dishonoured for want of ‘sufficient funds’. The complainant had issued a notice, dated 09- 05-1997, which was received by the accused on 25-05- 1997, but the accused did not pay the amount. The complainant had filed Calendar Case No.1051 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of arguments, in the said case, the accused had induced the complainant that he would pay the amount in instalments and persuaded to enter into a compromise. Believing the representation of the accused, he had entered into an agreement of mutual understanding, dated 27-10-1998, and as per the agreement the accused has to pay the amount in 12 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.20,000/- or in alternative he has to supply the material equal to the value of the amount. Pursuant to the said agreement, Calendar Case No.1051 of 1997 was withdrawn from the Court and thereafter, the accused had dishonestly and fraudulently avoided the payments. Thus, the accused had fraudulently and dishonestly represented and induced to enter into an agreement with a false promise and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the 2nd petitioner is prepared to deposit the said amount of compensation, as awarded by the Court below, and he further submitted that the 2nd petitioner has undergone a sentence of about a week. 6. Taking the said facts into consideration, the said sentence of six months imposed by the lower appellate Court, is modified to that of the period already undergone. The said amount of compensation of Rs.1,62,823.05 ps shall be deposited before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad within a period of six weeks and the 2nd respondent is at liberty to approach the Court below and withdraw the said amount. 7. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 07th April, 2010. Tsy