THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.627 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The first respondent herein filed a private complaint stating that the petitioner herein issued three cheques for Rs.10,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- to him on three occasions with regard to the payment of cost of the prawn feed bags supplied to him, during the course of business transaction and that when the same were presented, they were returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Since the same is attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda, has taken on file the said private complaint as C.C.No.258 of 1998. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant got himself examined as P.W-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. On behalf of the accused, none was examined and Ex.D-1 was marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 19.10.2000, convicted and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Against the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, who by his judgment, dated 25.03.2004, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court. Challenging the said judgment, the accused approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. Though notices were sent to the first respondent- complainant, the same were not served on him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for about ten days. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 25.03.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 05.04.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for quite some time. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 198 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 03rd February 2011 DR