TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the earlier decision in Sadanandan Bhadran versus Madhavan Sunil Kumar, [1998 (8) TMI 541 - SUPREME COURT] was over-ruled and it was held that prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheques is also permissible so long as it satisfies the requirements stipulated in the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petition dismissed. - Cr. Revision No.297 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2018 - Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Balram Sharma, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent : Mr. A.S.Rana, Advocate. ORDER Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Ora l). The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Magistrate to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act ). 2. The petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, constraining him to file the instant revision. 3. It is vehemently argue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including Akalu Aheer vs. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973, SC 2145 , held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system . 14. In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad, AIR 1986, SC 1436 , the Hon ble Apex Court observed that High Court committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence as in its revisional jurisdiction it was not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact . 15. In Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh, AIR 1986 SC 1721 , the legal position regarding scope of revisional jurisdiction was summed up by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the following terms: It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a re-trial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 21. In State of A.P. vs. Rajagopala Rao (2000) 10 SCC 338, the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under: The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment. 6. In order to see whether there is any perversity in the judgments and findings recorded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent is duly corroborated by the documents that have been brought on record by him. 9. On the other hand, the petitioner did not examine any witness. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the issuance of the cheque in question or the signatures thereupon, but his simple defence was that the cheque had been issued in favour of the respondent as a security in order to encash the freight charges as the petitioner was a commission agent. However, such defence has not been substantiated or corroborated by any material on record. Therefore, no infirmity much less any perversity can be found with the judgments of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Courts below. 10. As regards the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Sharma s case (supra), upon which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is totally misconceived. The facts therein were that two Directors of the company had taken a loan of ₹ 5,00,000/- and issued two cheques of ₹ 3,00,000/- and ₹ 2,00,000/-, respectively in favour of the respondent therein. On presentation, they were returned unpaid with the remar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
