9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl. R.P. No.1847/2009 which was disposed of by this Court as per Anx.A-1 judgment on 09.10.2015 which reads as follows: "The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.108 of 2005 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg. 2. The trial court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her thereunder to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. The appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, this revision petition has been file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this court. 7. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The cheque is for an amount of 1,00,000/-. Considering Rs. the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of 1,00,000/- Rs. to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so. In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part, (i) confirming the verdict of guilty and conviction passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) the sentence awarded by the courts below under Section 138 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is petition, notice to R-1 (complainant) stands dispensed with. It is submitted by Sri.C.K.Sreejith, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the petitoner could not deposit the fine amount within the time stipulated in Anx.A-1 judgment, he intends to make the deposit but that the Court below is not accepting the said amount on the ground that the time granted by this Court had already expired. The petitioner would contend that the default sentence clause cannot be enforced if the accused is prepared to pay the fine amount and in this regard the learned Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the legal principles laid down by this Court in Gireesh V. Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd. reported in 2007(1) KLT 16, Beena V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
