2023 (11) TMI 880 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - conviction of appellant - Seeking acquittal from the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act - HELD THAT - From perusal of the record it reveals that the statement of the complainant Jagdish Gupta (PW-1) is well supported by the cheque (Ex.P-1) notice (Ex.P-2 and P-3) postal receipt (Ex.P-4) letter (Ex.P-5). Applicant did not examined any witness before the trial Court and he did not reply the notice (Ex.P-2 and P-3) therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Jagdish Gupta (PW-1) and the documentary evidence available on record therefore on the basis of the aforesaid evidence the trial Court has rightly held that the applicant has committed offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. On perusal of the record the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant appears to be just and proper. Hence finding force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the applicant is facing trial since 2014 i.e. for a period of almost 09 years and has already undergone two months jail incarceration this Court finds it appropriate to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the applicant however reducing his jail sentence to the period already undergone. This revision petition is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction but reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the applicant. Since the applicant is already on bail his bail and surety bonds stand discharged.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a criminal revision preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging a conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Details of the judgment:

1. Background and Conviction:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act, alleging that the accused issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the accused, who then appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, but the conviction was upheld.

2. Grounds for Revision:
The accused, during the revision, argued that he had served two months in jail, paid the compensation amount, and was now 62 years old with no prior criminal record. He sought acquittal from the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

3. Evidence and Decision:
The court noted that the complainant's statement was supported by various documents, including the cheque, notice, postal receipt, and letter. The accused did not present any witnesses or reply to the notice. The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence.

4. Sentencing and Reduction:
The accused's counsel argued for a reduction in the jail sentence, citing the time already served and the lengthy trial period. The court agreed and reduced the jail sentence to the time already undergone by the accused, considering the circumstances and lack of criminal history.

5. Final Decision:
The court partly allowed the revision petition, maintaining the conviction but reducing the jail sentence to the period already served. The accused's bail and surety bonds were discharged, and the disposal of property was to be as per the trial court's order.

6. Conclusion:
The court sent a copy of the order along with the records to the lower courts for compliance. The revision petition was partly allowed, and the accused's sentence was reduced based on the circumstances presented during the proceedings.