IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Revision Case No.897 of 2009 Between: Jasti Ankamma Chowdary …Revision Petitioner/Complainant A n d Yallapragada Bhaskara Rao and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.R.C.No.897 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment dated 22.02.2008 in CC No.122 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Judicial Civil Judge, Ponnur, wherein, the first appellant herein was found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default, to under go simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The present revision is filed by the complainant expressing grievance over imposition of sentence of fine alone without imposing sentence of imprisonment. The learned Magistrate took a lenient view in the matter of imposition of sentence taking into account the plea of the accused that he is a government teacher and he has two college going children and he has to maintain wife and two children besides his old mother and that he has been suffering from heart ailment and mental disorder. The accused also submitted medical record in support of his plea before the trial Court. The trial Court on being convinced with the plea of mercy raised by the accused is genuine and on being satisfied that the material placed before the Court in support of the said plea, took a lenient view in the matter of imposition of sentence and accordingly imposed sentence of fine of Rs.5000/-. 4. Having regard to the fact that the accused is admittedly a government teacher, imposing of sentence of imprisonment would certainly result in loss of job throwing the entire family on to the streets. As the accused has to maintain his family i.e., wife and two college going children besides aged mother with a meagre income as a teacher and also in view of the fact that he was suffering from heart ailment and mental disorder, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any grave error in the matter of imposition of sentence. The ground on which plea of mercy was raised by the accused justified such a lenient view. The impugned judgment of the trial Court, is therefore, held not liable to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.08.2009 bss