THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1 of 2003 DATED: 22-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-accused, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 30-12-2002, passed in Crl.A.No.73 of 2002 by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of ten days for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C.No.1762 of 1999, dated 27.02.1999. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner- accused issued a cheque, dated 15.07.1999, for an amount of Rs.1,58,400/- towards discharge of both the outstanding amounts, due under hire purchase agreement, relating to an Ambassador car, to the 2nd respondent-complainant and when the said cheque was presented for realization, the same was bounced with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Section 138 of the Act, the 2nd respondent-complainant filed a complaint and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.1762 of 1999. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the 2nd respondent-complainant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. 4. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also on perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have rightly held that the petitioner-accused is guilty of the said offence and accordingly no interference is called for. However, taking the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for some time and the cheque amount has already been realized by selling the said car, which was purchased under hire purchase agreement, this Court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of six months to that of the period already undergone. 7. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 22nd July, 2010. Tsy