IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.97 of 2004 Between: Shabuddin .. Petitioner AND 1. Abdul Lateef 2. The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.97 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), is directed against judgment, dated 09.10.2003, made in Crl.A.No.236 of 2002, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby, judgment, dated 17.12.2002, in C.C.No.921 of 2001, on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Offences), Nalgonda, convicting the petitioner/accused under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentencing him for a period of six months simple imprisonment and payment of compensation of Rs.17,000/- to the de facto complainant in the case under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’), was confirmed. 2. Brief the facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner/accused was a tenant of Mulgies belonging to the de facto complainant. Ex.P-1-cheque bearing No.161972 for Rs.17,000/- was issued by the petitioner/accused to the de facto complainant towards due rent, but it was dishonoured, after completing necessary provisions, i.e., issuing legal notice, the complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. On behalf of the petitioner/accused, he got himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. 4. After due trial, the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act which was confirmed by the trial Court. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the conviction and sentence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the compensation amount of Rs.17,000/- was already deposited at the time of preferring the appeal before the trial Court and further, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed may be reduced to the period of retention already undergone and accordingly, the revision petition may be disposed of. 7. Section 138 of the N.I. Act reads as follows: “Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account: Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both.” 8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/accused paid the compensation amount of Rs.17,000/- already. He made the de facto complainant to suffer for a long time. Further, it is represented that the de facto complainant is no more and a direction was given by this Court to add his legal representatives for the purpose of paying the amount to them. 9. Under the circumstances enumerated, a lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentence. Hence, the sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months can be reduced to three (3) months and not less than that. 10. In the result, the conviction recorded by the learned the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Offences), Nalgonda, in C.C.No.921 of 2001, vide judgment, dated 17.12.2001, and confirmed by the Appellate Court against the petitioner/accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is confirmed, but the sentence is reduced from Simple Imprisonment of six (6) months to Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months, while keeping in fact the clause about the payment of the compensation while holding that period of remand, if any, undergone by the petitioner/accused during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given as set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 11. With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to consider the question of paying the amount of Rs.17,000/- to the legal representatives of the de facto complainant by taking necessary measures in accordance with law. _________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 15th April, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.97 of 2004 Date: 15th April, 2011 KL