9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgments, though they arise out of the same judgment and order, is required to be deprecated. 4. In the present case, the respondent had filed a complaint on 10.7.2003 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bearing Summary Criminal Case No.221/2003 and it came to be decided by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Ahmednagar on 22.3.2018. The accused was convicted and then he filed Criminal Appeal No.82/2018 before the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar to challenge the conviction; whereas Criminal revision No.85/2018 was filed by original complainant for enhancement. The criminal appeal as well as criminal revision were decided by the same Presiding Officer on 25.11.2019. However, as aforesaid, two different judgments have been delivered by him. It is to be noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing separate judgments in Criminal Revision, has stated that, "Both the appeal and the revision are decided at one and the same time. The reasons assigned in the appeal, while dismissing the said appeal, are the same reasons for allowing present revision application. Since, both the proceedings are distinct and filed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yet that is applicable to the criminal cases also. 6. At the cost of repetitions, it is reiterated that, judicial officers, only to get more disposal norms, should not resort to such kind of practice, which will jeopardize the rights and remedies of the parties. 7. The facts, giving rise to the writ petition as well as the revision before this court are that: Present respondent, as aforesaid, had filed SCC No.221/2003 against the present petitioners. It was contended by the complainant-cooperative society that, accused No.1, which is a partnership firm, of which, accused No.2 is a partner, had taken loan on cash credit facility on 27.2.2001 to the tune of Rs. 11,50,000/-. The accused have executed necessary documents in favour of the complainant-society. When the society demanded its outstanding loan amount, at that time, accused No.2, in the capacity as partner of accused No.1-firm, gave cheque bearing No.021068 on 26.3.2003 for an amount of Rs. 13,76,188/-. The said cheque was dishonoured and, therefore, the complainant issued notice on 8.4.2003. When the said notice was received by accused No.2, he came to the complainant once again and by settling the account, he gave another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar in SC No. 221 of 2003 is quashed and set aside. 3. The SCC No. 221 of 2003 stands restored to the file of concerned learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class for passing the appropriate sentence in accordance with law. 4. The parties are directed to cause their appearance before concerned learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 18.12.2019 without fail. 5. Inform the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate accordingly." Against the aforesaid two orders, the writ petition as well as the Criminal revision are filed by the original accused. The Writ Petition challenges the judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision No. 85/2018; whereas the criminal revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82/2018. 11. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. 12. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of learned Advocate Shri PK Lakhotiya that, it appears from both the judgments that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was under confusion as to what he should do. At the first place, he dismissed the appeal and it is also mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has been sent back for pronouncement of the appropriate sentence. There is absolutely no necessity to remand the matter and on merits of the case also, the complainant has a good case, as the disputed cheque, issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability has been dishonoured, and in spite of receipt of the notice, the accused has failed to make payment of the amount under the cheque. 15. In the instant matter, the first point, that is required to be decided is, as to whether the matters deserve to be remanded, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts. It will not be out of place to mention here that the matters before the learned Additional Sessions Judge were to challenge the finding regarding guilt of the accused as well as the sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have segregated these two parts; once the appeal is dismissed and the conviction by the learned Magistrate is maintained. As per the operative order passed in criminal appeal No.82/2018, the effect of the same is that the proceedings in respect of Summary Criminal Case before the Magistrate has come to an end. It could not have been re-opened for whatever rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Magistrate was pleased to award just "compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the said society." Further, the said fact is again repeated that the Magistrate has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- only. Therefore, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while making observations in respect of enhancement of the compensation, forgot to see that there was no order of compensation at all by the learned Magistrate which could be enhanced. The enhancement presupposes awarding of some amount as compensation. In fact, there ought to have been, in such circumstance, a discussion as to whether awarding of compensation is necessary or not, as compensation can be awarded under Section 357(1) or 357(3) of Cr.P.C. If the compensation is to be should be from the fine amount and if it is to be in view of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., then fine should not be part of sentence. Further, the entire provision of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and, therefore, there ought to have been an endeavour in the judgment to state as to why the sentence is inadequate. The scope of the revision petition has been then restricted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for enhancement of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
