TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o simple imprisonment for one year and the accused shall pay compensation of ₹ 2.4 lakhs, failing which the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months etc, However, while affirming the conviction, the appellate court has carefully assessed the matter and found that the sentence imposed by the trial court is slightly excessive and had accordingly ordered that the substantive sentence of one year imposed on the petitioner will stand modified and reduced as imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation of ₹ 2.4 lakhs. The cheque amount in question comes to ₹ 1,97,900/-. Ext.P-2 cheque is dated 2.8.2002. The Apex Court has in various judgments held that fine amount or compensati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he should pay compensation of ₹ 2.4 lakhs, which shall be payable to the complainant as per Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default thereof, the petitioner was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. The appellate court (Court II Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam) as per the impugned judgment dated 3.3.2007 in Crl.Appeal No.440/2006, while affirming the conviction, had modified the sentence by ordering that the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of ₹ 2.4 lakhs to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default of which, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It is this conviction and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a firm, which was already dissolved and that the accused did not purchase any goods from the complainant and that the accused had not issued any such cheque. However, the signature of the cheque was not denied. It was not suggested by the defence as to, on what circumstances the cheque happened to be in the custody of the complainant. In the written statement filed by the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., he had stated that the firm in question was one to which his father and uncles were partners and there were disputes between the partners and that the hostile partners had fraudulently taken blank cheques and conspired to foist false case. However, while giving sworn evidence as D.W1, the accused deposed that the cheque was somehow lost. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. No such persons, Fraincis or Johnson were examined on behalf of the defence. Since the accused had admitted the signature and he could not properly explain as to how the cheque came in the possession of the complainant, the trial court found that the excuses projected by the accused are only lame excuses to wriggle out of the liability. Though the accused had produced Ext.D-1 and D-2 documents to show that M/s.Kuttichakku Lona Anthony Sons, was dissolved, the trial court found that it is immaterial since P.W-1 only stated that the accused purchased goods, representing that he was the proprietor of the said firm. Therefore, the trial court found that it is unnecessary to inquire as to the correctness or otherwise of the assertion of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered that the substantive sentence of one year imposed on the petitioner will stand modified and reduced as imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation of ₹ 2.4 lakhs. The cheque amount in question comes to ₹ 1,97,900/-. Ext.P-2 cheque is dated 2.8.2002. The Apex Court has in various judgments held that fine amount or compensation amount as the case may be in prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be the cheque amount + 9% interest from the date of cheque upto date of realisation. Going by those judgments, it cannot be said that the compensation amount of ₹ 2.4 lakhs is any way excessive or disproportionate. The cheque was issued as early as on 2.8.2002. The revision petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
