HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Revision Case No.693 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner herein was tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for PCR Cases, Warangal, in C.C.No.53 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the Act’). During the course of trial, the private respondent herein got himself examined as P.W.1 and one more witness was examined on his behalf and he also got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-8. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charged offence, and accordingly, by his judgment dated 08/11/2001, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.196 of 2001 and the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, while confirming the said sentence, dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 16/05/2003. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the petitioner/accused filed this revision case under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Act alleging that the petitioner/accused had obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- by executing a promissory note to repay the same as and when demanded. On demand, the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. On presentation of the cheque, the same was returned on the ground that ‘account closed’. After following the procedure under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act, the complainant filed the complaint in C.C.No.53 of 2001. Heard. Learned counsel fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference and requested that a lenient view may be taken. It appears from the record that the appeal was dismissed on 16/05/2003, and this revision was admitted by this Court on 27/05/2003 and bail was granted. From the said fact, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of two weeks. As the sentence imposed by the trial Court is for a period of three months, this Court is of the view that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) months imposed by the trial Court is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the accused. In all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th July, 2010 SKM