THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1575 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 Challenging the judgment dated 09.09.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parkal, Warangal District in C.C.No.12 of 2002 the de facto complainant in the said case filed the present revision. 2 Facts in brief are that the petitioner and the first respondent – accused are the partners of one Chaitanya English Medium School, Parkal and that the share of the petitioner was assessed at Rs.90,000/-. The accused issued a cheque bearing No.658087 dated 03.12.2001 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- in favour of the petitioner drawn on the State Bank of India, Parkal Branch towards partial discharge of the said amount of Rs.90,000/-. The petitioner presented the said cheque through is banker for clearance, but the same was dishonoured for the reason that the account was closed. Then the petitioner got issued a statutory notice to the accused demanding him to pay the amount covered under the cheque. But the accused did not receive the said notice and avoided it. Hence the petitioner filed the present complaint before the court below against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3 The learned Magistrate, having considered the entire material available on record, found the 1st respondent - accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act, but however, taking a lenient view sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- only, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Questioning the said sentence of imposing only fine and not awarding any compensation to him, the complainant filed the present revision. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 Since the cheque amount involved in this case is only Rs.15,000/- and the alleged offence is of the year 2001, in my considered view, it is the discretion of the court, which tries the accused to impose the sentence. If the court finds that the offence is not that much grave warranting imprisonment, then it may impose fine upon the accused. Here also the trial court taking the view that the amount covered under the cheque was only Rs.15,000/- into consideration, imposed the said sentence of fine on the accused instead of sentencing him to jail, which view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case needs no interference. 6 Accordingly, I see no merits in this revision and hence the same is dismissed. -------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010