THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2074 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.2004 made in Crl.A.No.91 of 2002 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The petitioner-accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant on 9.12.1999 for the purpose of his family expenses and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., with yearly rests. When the complainant demanded the accused for payment of the amount, the petitioner-accused issued a cheque bearing No.007263, on 6.5.2000 for Rs.80,000/- drawn on Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Agraharam, Eluru towards part satisfaction of the debt due under the promote. On presentation of the said cheque, the same was returned with an endorsement as ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant after following the procedure under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, made a complaint. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru took the cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No.340 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.91 of 2002 before the V Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, Eluru. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction recorded by the Court below, but modified the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year to three months, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the Court below. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner-accused filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of four days. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgments of the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since 2000 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of four days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Ac t imposed by the lower appellate Court on the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 10th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2074 of 2004 10.3.2011