THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1067 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioners herein were tried by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.217 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked. On behalf of the accused, none was examined and no documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 25.01.2001, sentenced accused No.1 to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and sentenced accused No.2 to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further, directed that in default of payment of fine by accused No.1, accused No.2 has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The same was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who by his judgment, dated 13.04.2004, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentenced imposed on the accused by the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. The brief facts of the case are that the first petitioner is a firm for which the second petitioner is a partner; that the second petitioner-accused took a hand loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the first respondent herein and towards repayment of the said debt, the accused issued three cheques for Rs.2 lakhs, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- and when the same were presented by the complainant with the banker for clearance, they were returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 17.02.2000, was sent by the complainant to the accused demanding the payment of the amount under the said dishonoured cheques, but the accused did not repay the amount. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the complainant. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference on merits, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the second petitioner-accused No.2 has undergone imprisonment for a period of about 2 ½ months. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record. The impugned judgment was pronounced by the lower appellate Court on 13.04.2004 and immediately, the second petitioner herein-accused No.2 was sent to jail and was released by virtue of the bail granted by the trial Court on 01.07.2004. From the above, it is clear that the second petitioner herein-accused No.2 has undergone a sentence of nearly 2 ½ months. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposed on the second petitioner herein-accused No.2 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 17th February 2011 DR