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 : 909 OF 2003 Between: Uppala Sudhakar Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Vaka Prabhakar Reddy and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No : 909 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The complainant in C.C.No.93 of 2000 is the petitioner herein and he filed this revision stating that the sentence imposed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kavali to the 1st respondent herein in C.C.No.93 of 2000 is inadequate. 2. The case of the complainant is that he and the 1st respondent are having business transactions and in connection therewith, the 1st respondent issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.22,650/- on 25-10-1999 and on presentation of it in State Bank of India, Kavali, for collection, the same was bounced. After following the procedure as provided for under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the said complaint has been filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.93 of 2000. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. One A.Sudhakar was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of the 1st respondent. The trial Court having analyzed the said evidence, came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. On payment of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.4,000/- was ordered to be paid to the petitioner herein towards costs of the complaint. The same as stated supra is questioned in this revision case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. In my considered view, the trial Court has rightly sentenced the 1st respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. It is purely discretion of the trial Court with regard to the quantum of sentence and it cannot be said that for an offence of this nature, the sentence of four months is inadequate. It is not as though in every case falling under Section 138 of the Act, the Court has to direct the accused to pay compensation amount. Here the cheque amount is Rs.22,650/- and the Court below imposed sentence as four months and also a fine of Rs.5,000/- and an amount of Rs.4,000/- from out of Rs.5,000/- was directed to be paid towards costs of the complaint to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court was perfectly valid and no interference is called for. 5. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________ 19th August 2010 KVR