JUDGMENT 1. :Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the orders impugned and the record received from the court below. 2. This Revision Petition under section 397 read with section 401 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 17.09.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Cr. Appeal No.345/2010 whereby appeal of the accused petitioner against conviction under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed and the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by learned Special Judge (NI Act cases), No.2, Jodhpur in Cr. Case No.420/2009- Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank, Sardarpura (Jodhpur) Branch v. Prem Singh was affirmed, however, reduced the punishment, by sentencing him with one month's simple imprisonment instead of one year's S.I. And fine of Rs. 40,000/- imposed by the trial court was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment whereof to undergo further 15 days' simple imprisonment. Upon deposit of amount of fine, Rs. 5000/- was ordered to be paid to the Bank towards cost. 3. Briefly stating facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the respondent No.2-Bank, inter alia, alleging that the accused-petitioner took loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the Bank under Cash-Credit scheme on 12.03.2002. On 16.08.2007 the accused-petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 34,074/- to the Bank towards his outstanding loan amount. The cheque was, however, dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of accused-petitioner. Despite giving notice, the amount was not repaid. Hence, a case was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the court. Learned Special Judge (NI Act Cases) No.2, Jodhpur, after due trial, convicted the accused petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed punishment in the terms stated herein above. 4. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17th September 2011, while reducing sentence imposed by the trial court, in the terms stated herein above. Aggrieved thereby, the accused-petitioner has preferred present Revision Petition. 5. In appeal, the orders impugned are assailed on various grounds. Aggrieved thereby, the accused-petitioner has preferred present Revision Petition. 5. In appeal, the orders impugned are assailed on various grounds. However, today, learned counsel for the accused petitioner produced a No Dues Certificate issued by the respondent-Bank on 20.09.2011, inter alia, certifying that the accused-petitioner has deposited all outstanding amount along with interest in his loan account and now, no amount of the Bank is due against accused-petitioner. A receipt issued by the District Legal Aid Authority, Jodhpur against deposit of Rs. 5115/- has also been produced. The aforesaid certificate and the receipt are taken on record. 6. In view of this position that the accused-petitioner has deposited all the dues of the respondent-Bank and he remained behind the bars from 17.09.2011 to 22.09.2011, I feel that ends of justice would be satisfied if the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon accused-petitioner is reduced to the imprisonment already suffered by him. 7. In the result, present Revision Petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintained, however, sentence imposed upon him, as modified by appellate court vide order dated 17.09.2011, is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused petitioner. Bail bonds of the accused-petitioner shall stand discharged.Revision Partly allowed. *******