THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1445 of 2004 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the private complaint filed by the first respondent herein alleging that the accused was appointed by him as dealer and the accused was responsible for the day to day affairs in the conduct of business; that the complainant was supplying cement to the accused on credit basis and the accused fell due a huge amount and in partial discharge of the said liability, the petitioner herein issued a cheque, dated 31.07.2000, for Rs.1,22,460/- and that, when the same was presented with the banker-State Bank of Patiala, Abids Branch, Hyderabad, for the purpose of collection, it was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”, attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, has numbered it as C.C.No.218 of 2001. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, the legal manager of the company was examined as P.W-1 and Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, by his judgment, dated 24.07.2003, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and further, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Against the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who by his judgment, dated 19.07.2004, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner-accused approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for about one month and has also paid the entire fine amount. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the said submission of the learned counsel, this Court looked into the record. The appeal was dismissed on 19.07.2004 and immediately, the accused was taken into custody. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 19.08.2004, while admitting the Revision, he was released on bail. Thus, it is evident that he has undergone a sentence of about one month. As the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner- accused by both the Courts below is only three months and he has already undergone a sentence of one month, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposed on the petitioner herein-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 31st March 2011 DR