O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner-accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.02.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2009 on the file of learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (cid:150) cum (cid:150) XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the appellate Court while confirming the conviction and retaining the fine amount imposed by the learned XV Additional Judge (cid:150) cum (cid:150) XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.25 of 2009, has reduced the sentence from one year to six months.

2. The facts in brief, as can be seen from the record are as under:

a) The respondent No. 1 - complainant being a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act was carrying business in pharmaceuticals and supply material to the customers in normal course of business. The revision petitioner - accused has placed orders to the complainant company for supply of Omerprazole pellets. As per the order dated 21.12.2006 the complainant has supplied the said product under invoice No.509 dated 29.01.2007 and invoice No.510 dated 30.01.2007 total worth of Rs.9,52,912/-. After receiving of the products and after repeated requests made by the complainant, the revision petitioner (cid:150) accused has issued four cheques drawn on ING Vysya Bank, Himayathnagar in discharge of the liability out of which the complainant has presented two cheques bearing No.512879 dated 17.03.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- with his SBH, Cherlapally, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement (cid:147)Funds Insufficient(cid:148) vide memo dated 20.03.2007.

b) Then the complainant got issued legal notice on 16.04.2007 calling upon the accused to pay the amount within 15 days. Inspite of receiving the legal notice on 20.04.2007, the revision petitioner neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. Hence, the acts of the revision petitioner (cid:150) accused constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

c) The complaint filed by the respondent No.2 was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.730 of 2007 on the file of learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistgrate, Hyderabad against the revision petitioner for thee offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, the case was transferred to learned XV Additional Judge (cid:150) cum (cid:150) XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and numbered as C.C.No.25 of 2009.

d) The revision petitioner (cid:150) accused was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the accusations levelled against him, for which the revision petitioner (cid:150) accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the respondent No. 2 (cid:150) complainant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 17 on his behalf. On the other hand, the revision petitioner (cid:150) accused failed to adduce either documentary or oral evidence in support of his contentions.

e) The trial Court after hearing rival contentions, has filed convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner (cid:150) accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner (cid:150) accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2009 on the file of learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (cid:150) cum (cid:150) XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the appellate Court has confirmed the conviction, however, the sentence was reduced from one year to six months.

3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of criminal appeal, the revision petitioner has filed the present criminal revision case to set aside the judgment dated 26.02.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2009 on the file of learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (cid:150) cum (cid:150) XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad on the following grounds:

i) The courts be