THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.612 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The first respondent herein filed a private complaint stating that the petitioner herein issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- towards repayment of the loan borrowed from him and that, that when the same was presented in the bank, it was bounced back 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, Hyderabad East and North, Ranga Reddy District, has taken on file the said private complaint as C.C.No.1114 of 2002. 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-6. On behalf of the accused, none was examined and no documents were 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 11.08.2003, convicted and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Against the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, who by his judgment, dated 19.02.2004, 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 yet returned 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 1 ½ months. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 19.02.2004 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 29.03.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about 40 days. 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 138 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