IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.NO : 1356 OF 2001 Between: M/s. Sri Kalyani Agrochemicals Gandhi Chowk, Karimnagar District and 2 others. ..... PETITIONER AND M/s. Indian Organic Chemicals Limited, Secunderabad and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No. 1356 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The petitioners and six others were tried by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.433 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity ‘the Act’). The learned Magistrate, having assessed the oral and documentary evidence that was let in during the course of trial, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were found guilty of the offence and accordingly, while acquitting the other accused, sentenced the 1st and 3rd petitioners to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and also sentenced the 2nd petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the appellate Court and filed Crl.A.No.324 of 2001 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The lower appellate Court, vide its Judgment dated 19-11-2001, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Revision Case. 2. Apparently, the petitioners 2 and 3 are the managing partners of the 1st petitioner i.e. M/s. Shri Kalyani Agro Chemicals, Gandhi Chowk, Karimnagar District, and as seen from the evidence, it appears that the petitioners 2 and 3, along with others, issued cheques for certain amounts, on behalf of the 1st petitioner, in favour of the 1st respondent. The same was considered by the trial Court and gave a finding that the petitioners are found guilty of the offence, and on appeal, the same was confirmed by the appellate Court, which in my considered view, needs no interference and I do not see any merit in this revision. 3. However, it is a fact that the 2nd petitioner was initially in jail for a period of about seven days. The appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, on 19-11-2001, and immediately, he was taken into custody, and he could come out on bail only after revision was admitted and bail was granted on 22-11-2001. Thereafter, on 09-03-2010 when the matter was taken up for hearing, as there was no representation on behalf of the 2nd petitioner, this Court cancelled the bail granted on 22-11- 2001 and directed the police concerned to take the 2nd petitioner into custody. 4. However, as the said sentence imposed by the trial Court is only for a period of six months and the petitioner was in jail for a period of five months and the alleged offence is of the year 1996, a lenient view can be taken. 5. Accordingly, the sentence imposed against the 2nd petitioner for a period of six months is reduced to the period he has already undergone. 6. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________ 5th August 2010 kvr