THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1064 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 De facto complainant before the trial court filed this revision aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.06.2002 passed by the learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate at Tenali in C.C.No.45 of 2001 whereby the leaned Magistrate sentenced the first respondent herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, but had not imposed any fine. 2 Brief facts are that the first respondent issued a cheque dated 20.01.2001 for Rs.1,30,000/- in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the debt covered under a promissory note. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 19.01.2001 but the same was dishonoured for the reason ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter the complainant, after following due procedure i.e. issuance of statutory notice etc., filed the complaint before the court below against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial the trial court having analysed the entire material available before it, found the first respondent guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, but did not impose any fine. 3. Heard. 4 The powers of this court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C are very limited. If the trial court comes to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence for which he was tried, it is purely discretion of the said court to impose any sentence at its discretion. In the case on hand, the trial court found the first respondent guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act for which the maximum punishment that can be imposed is imprisonment for two years or with fine or with both. As stated supra, it is for the trial court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence committed, to decide as to whether the accused shall be sentenced to undergo imprisonment or he may be imposed some fine amount or with both. Here, though the trial court found the first respondent guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act, but, however, taking the overall situation into consideration, exercising its discretion, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months but did not impose any fine. The said discretion, in my considered view, cannot be said to be arbitrary. Accordingly I see no merits in this revision and thus the same is dismissed. -------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010