JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2008 and accused in C.C.No.183 of 2003, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, questioning the judgment, dated 18.03.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2008, whereunder the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, dismissed the appeal confirming the calendar and judgment, dated 18.02.2008 in C.C.No.45 of 2008, under which the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, found the present Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I. Act' for short) and convicted him and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience. 3. The case of the complainant, in brief, according to the averments in the complaint before the Court below, is that on 14.08.1996 one Varikutu Yelesu borrowed Rs.20,400/- from the complainant for his family expenses and along with guarantors i.e., accused and that one Varikuti Samsonu, jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant, agreeing to repay an amount of Rs.29,263/-including interest of Rs.8,868/- in 36 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 813/-. The drawing and disbursement officer of the said Yelesu i.e., the Commissioner, Tenali Municipality, undertake to pay the installments after deducting the same from the salary of the original borrower. So, accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs.26,006/- to the complainant through the Commissioner towards part satisfaction and failed to pay the balance amount. The original borrower and the guarantor i.e., accused executed debt acknowledgement letters periodically. Ultimately, when the complainant demanded to pay the balance, accused being guarantor of the original borrower, issued a cheque for Rs.18,000/-, in favour of the complainant, towards part satisfaction of the balance and when it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured by Chaitanya Grameena Bank, Nidubrolu, as 'funds were insufficient' in the account of the accused. Complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused. The accused received it and kept quite. Hence, the complaint. 4. Complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused. The accused received it and kept quite. Hence, the complaint. 4. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, took cognizance on file under Section 138 of N.I. Act and after furnishing copies of documents as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), examined the accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the allegations in the complaint, for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During the course of trial before the trial Court, complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. After the closure of evidence of the complainant, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating circumstances and did not adduce any evidence. 6. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, on hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and accordingly, convicted him and sentenced him as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2008 before the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, which came to be dismissed on merits on 18.03.2009. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 7. Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said judgment? Point:- 8. Sri N. Harinadh, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, would contend that the learned appellate Judge ought to have reversed the findings of the learned Magistrate. The complainant failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have held that the debt under Ex.P.3 was time barred and it was not legally enforceable debt. No statutory notice was issued to the original borrower, as such, the complaint before the Court below must fail. The Court below did not look into Exs.P.1 to P.17 are fabricated. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have held that the debt under Ex.P.3 was time barred and it was not legally enforceable debt. No statutory notice was issued to the original borrower, as such, the complaint before the Court below must fail. The Court below did not look into Exs.P.1 to P.17 are fabricated. As an alternative contention, he would also submit that the Revision Petitioner duly paid the cheque amount to the complainant during the course of pendency of the Criminal Revision Case, as such, Court may take into consideration this fact and in the event of dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the Revision Petitioner may be modified as that of fine amount. 9. Smt. G. Jhansy, learned counsel for the first respondent, would contend that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence on record that complainant established a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the Court below and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, rightly appreciated the evidence, as such, Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. She would further submit that it is a fact that during the course of pendency of the Revision Case, the Revision Petitioner paid the subject matter of the cheque amount to the first respondent, as such, the request of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner may kindly be considered. 10. The sum and substance of the case of the complainant before the Court below is that originally one Yelesu borrowed Rs.20,400/- on 14.08.1996 from the complainant and later when he failed to complete the payment of amount, the accused being guarantor, issued the subject matter of the cheque, which was dishonoured. 11. P.W.1 before the Court below is no other than the complainant, who adverted the facts according to the contents of the complaint. Through his examination, Exs.P.1 to P.17 are marked. On the other hand, accused did not examine any witness in support of his defence. P.W.1 was cross examined before the Court below on behalf of the accused. The complainant to prove the case against the accused duly got marked Ex.P.3, promissory note, executed by Varikuti Yelesu and his guarantors including the accused. It is a case where the original borrower executed Exs.P.5, P.6, P.7 and P.8, the acknowledgment of debt letters and the accused executed Exs.P.9 and P.10, debt acknowledgment letters. The complainant to prove the case against the accused duly got marked Ex.P.3, promissory note, executed by Varikuti Yelesu and his guarantors including the accused. It is a case where the original borrower executed Exs.P.5, P.6, P.7 and P.8, the acknowledgment of debt letters and the accused executed Exs.P.9 and P.10, debt acknowledgment letters. Ex.P.11 was said to be the cheque issued by the accused. The factum of dishonor is not in dispute. The contention of the accused before the Court below is multifold. One contention is that the statutory notice after the dishonor of the cheque was not issued to the original borrower. 12. It is to be noticed that it is not a case where the original borrower issued Ex.P.11, cheque. On the other hand, being the guarantor, it was the accused, who was said to have issued the said cheque. So, factum of dishonor was supposed to be intimated to the drawer of the cheque, who was the accused. Therefore, the contention of the accused before the Court below that after the dishonor, statutory notice was not issued to the original borrower holds no water. Apart from this, when the transaction under Ex.P.3, promissory note, was duly acknowledged by virtue of Exs.P.5, P.6, P.7 and P.8 in writing by the original borrower and other guarantor, as the case may be, and further by the accused under Ex.P.9 and P.10, further contention that the debt was barred by limitation deserves no merits. 13. Apart from this, it was also a plea before P.W.1 during the cross examination on behalf of the accused that Exs.P.1 to P.17 were fabricated. It is nothing a baseless defence. One cannot fabricate even the endorsements made by the bank about the factum of dishonor. So, the complainant by examining himself as P.W.1 and getting marked Exs.P.1 to P.17, discharged his burden. Accused failed to adduce any evidence. So, there was no rebuttal evidence at all except putting forth the defence before P.W.1, which he denied in the cross examination. 14. In my considered view, the complainant before the Court below duly proved that accused issued the subject matter of the cheque towards part discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence on record. 15. 14. In my considered view, the complainant before the Court below duly proved that accused issued the subject matter of the cheque towards part discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence on record. 15. Now, certain things that are happened during pendency of the Criminal Revision Case that is the payment made by the accused to the complainant about the amount covered under the cheque. It goes to prove that the case of the complainant is absolutely true. So, it is crystal clear that absolutely the impugned judgment does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety, as such, the complainant proved the case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused before the Court below beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Now, coming to another submission made by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, for which the complainant did not resist, admittedly, it is a case where the subject matter of the cheque was not huge amount. It was for a sum of Rs.18,000/-. Even the original borrower discharged more than half of the amount. Now, during the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, the Revision Petitioner paid the cheque amount to the complainant as per both counsel. 17. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice will meet, if the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the Revision Petitioner is modified as that of the fine. 18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part setting aside the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months imposed against the Revision Petitioner and sentencing the Revision Petitioner to that of a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) instead of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.