THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1939 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the first respondent used to run a chit fund company and that the petitioner joined as a meber in the said chit fund company and became successful bidder in a chit auction. In connection with that the first respondent issued a cheque bearing No.127635 for Rs.1,71,400/- on Vishya Bank, Hanamkonda branch. When the first respondent presented the said cheque into his banker for clearance the same was dishonored. Thereafter the first respondent after following due procedure laid down under the law, filed the complaint before the court below which was taken on file as C.C.No.43 of 2001 for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 During the course of trial, besides examining himself as P.W.1, the complainant got examined one more witness as P.W.2 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.6. The trial court having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of the fine amount of Rs.2,000/- an amount of Rs.1,500/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant – first respondent towards compensation as provided for under section 357 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 19.03.2002 by way of Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2002 and the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal by his judgment dated 16.12.2003. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed the present revision. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but however, requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 5 In the light of the said submission this court looked into the record. As seen from the record, the appeal was dismissed on 16.12.2003 and the petitioner was taken into custody on the same day itself and it is only after admission of this revision and granting of bail by this court on 26.12.2003, the petitioner came out of the jail. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of ten days. As the said sentence imposed by the courts below is only imprisonment for three months, and as the petitioner was in jail for about 10 days this court takes a lenient view. 6 Accordingly, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. -------------- 09.11.2010 Kvsn