( 1 ) THE order of conviction passed by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad in CC No. 230 of 1994 as confirmed by the order of the I Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in crl. A. No. 247 of 1996 in an offence arising out of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is assailed in this revision. The efforts made by the Court for effecting a compromise did not yield fruitful results. Hence, this order.

( 2 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner and the respondent are friends for over a decade and both of them are film producers. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was borrowing sums now and then from his personal funds as well as from the company funds and ultimately after going through the accounts the petitioner has given a cheque dated 28-12-1993 for Rs. 10,09,992/- drawn on Andhra Bank, T. Nagar, Madras marked as Ex. P1. On 30-12-1993 the respondent presented the cheque in andhra Bank, Jubilee Hills for collection. On 4-1-1994 the cheque was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". The memo under which the cheque was returned was marked as Ex. P2. The respondent was informed by the local bank about the non- collection of the cheque amount by its memo dated 7-1-1994 and the same was received by the respondent on 10-1-1994. Thereafter, the respondent got legal notice issued to the petitioner on 20-1-1994 and the office copy of the same was marked as Ex. P3. Having received the legal notice on 28-1-1994 the petitioner sent a reply on 2-2-1994 denying his liability to pay any amount and he has gone to the extent of saying that the confidence reposed on the respondent has been mis-used and a detailed criminal complaint has been lodged against him before the Assistant commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, madras on 7-1-1994. He also states that if the notice is not withdrawn within a week from the date of receipt of the letter the respondent will be certainly hauled up before a criminal Court. The same was marked as ex. P5. While the respondent got himself examined as PW1 one Vijaya Krishna Prasad said to have been working in the office of the petitioner was examined on behalf of the petitioner as DW1. The V Metropolitan magistrate having appraised the evidence both oral and documentary held that the respondent could bring home the guilt of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 11,00,000/ -. In default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and both the sentences will run consecutively. He also directed that out of the amount collected a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 cr. PC. Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction recorded by the V Metropolitan magistrate the petitioner carried the matter in appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1996 on the file of I Addl. Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Judge by order dated 30-7-1997 confirmed the conviction recorded by the Magistrate. But with regard to the punishment having acceded to the plea of the petitioner s Counsel that the petitioner is a young man and the fine imposed already is a heavy sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- set aside the imprisonment imposed by the trial court and confirmed the fine imposed by the magistrate. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner. This Court while admitting the revision case by order dated 21-10-1997 ordered interim suspension in Crl. MP no. 4788 of 1997 and at that stage Mr. Durga prasad having taken notice on behalf of the respondent brought to my notice that on the previous day while the Magistrate was ordering check petition one Mohan Rao appeared before the Court and claiming himself as Assistant of the petitioner herein submit