THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2092 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 2.12.2004 made in Crl.A.No.58 of 2003 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole. The case of the complainant is as follows: The petitioner-accused borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant on 10.3.2000 at Ongole and executed a promissory note in his favour promising to repay the same with interest at the rate o f 24% p.a. Subsequently, inspite of demands made by the complainant, the petitioner-accused did not make any payment, but issued a cheque on 10.01.2002 for Rs.30,000/-. When the said cheque was presented, the same was bounced. On the complaint made by the complainant, the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No.114 of 2002 for the offence under section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.58 of 2003 before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Court below. Questioning the said judgment, the accused filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the offence is of the year 2002. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the conviction recorded by the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of 20 days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. But however, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed against the petitioner-accused by the Courts below for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the sentence of compensation. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 31st March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2092 of 2004 31.3.2011