IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No : 1326 OF 2003 Between: T.Rami Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND R.Bal Reddy and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No : 1326 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioner was tried by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad (East and North), Ranga Reddy District, in C.C.No.1064 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 and Ex.X-1 were marked on behalf of the 1st respondent-complainant and D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the petitioner. Having analyzed the evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The same was questioned by filing Crl.A.No.96 of 2002 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The learned Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, but failed to repay the same. On repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant. On presentation of it in State Bank of India, E.C.I.L. Branch, the same was bounced with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Then the complainant issued legal notice to the accused calling upon to pay the amount within fifteen days, but the accused failed to pay the amount. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the orders passed by both the Courts below, it is clear that the Courts below were satisfied that there was legally enforceable debt and in lieu thereof, the present cheque has been issued and accordingly they held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence. 5. However, the appeal was dismissed on 03-09-2003 and the petitioner was immediately taken into custody and he was in jail for about a week. As the sentence imposed by the Courts below is only three months and the petitioner was in jail for about a week, this Court takes a lenient view and reduces the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months to that of the period he has already undergone. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________ 19th August 2010 kvr