THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C.No.169 of 2004 ORDER This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 21.01.2004, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Khammam in Crl.A.No.49 of 2002, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, in C.C.No.468 of 1998, dated 12.04.2002, was confirmed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner/accused is the dealer with code No.18-084 of the respondent company-complainant. During the course of business, the complainant supplied fertilizers to the accused on credit and the accused used to pay the amount to it from time to time. The petitioner fell due an amount of Rs.6,06,000/- up to 31.03.1998 to the complainant. On demand, the petitioner issued cheques on different dates to the complainant and on presentation of the same, they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the petitioner, who in turn, gave reply on 07.09.1998 stating that he will pay an amount of Rs.2,56,000/-within one year, but he did not pay the same. Hence, it filed a complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered as C.C.No.468 of 1998 under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked on behalf of the respondent- complainant. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of the petitioner/accused. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.49 of 2002. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Heard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it is not a fit case to acquit the petitioner, but a lenient view can be taken in the case of the petitioner. 7. This Court while admitting this revision on 06.02.2003, granted bail to the petitioner on condition of his depositing a sum of Rs.30,000/-to the credit of C.C.No.468 of 1998. From this, it is clear that he was in jail from 21.01.2004 to 07.02.2004 i.e., for a period of about two weeks. In those circumstances and in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court can be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is reduced from six months simple imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:15.12.2010 sj