HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Revision Case No.1006 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner herein was tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for PCR Cases, Warangal, in C.C.No.232 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Having considered the evidence, the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charged offence, and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.141 of 2001 and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Warangal, dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 10/07/2003. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the petitioner/accused filed this revision case. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Act alleging that the appellant/accused had obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/- with a promise to repay the same within one month. Subsequently, he failed to pay the amount, but on several demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.662619 dated 10/02/1996 for Rs.50,000/-, and on presentation, the same was dis-honoured on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’. After following the procedure under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act, the complainant filed the complaint in C.C.No.232 of 2001. When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in jail for more than ten days and the alleged offence took place prior to 2001 i.e., about ten years ago. In the light of the above circumstances, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the accused. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is maintained. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 26th March, 2010 SKM