TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hancement of compensation only as it appears. Therefore, it will have to be stated that there was no proper application of mind by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and all the requisite factors, which are required to be considered to see whether the sentence that has been awarded is adequate or not, have not been considered at all. Petition and revision partly allowed. - CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1985 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.368 of 2019 WITH CRI.APPLN.NO.4216/19 IN CRI.REVN.368/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2020 - SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. Mr.PK Lakhotiya, Adv. h/for Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for Petitioner/s; Mr. NV Gavare, Advocate for Respondent. ----- JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties. 2. Both these proceedings, i.e. criminal writ petition as well as criminal revision, are arising between the same parties and the original proceeding between them was also one, though the learned Appellate Court as well as Revisional Court has delivered two different judgments; yet in order to avoid repetitions, the writ petition and the revision are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations read thus, : ...Though both the matters were between the same parties, wife had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights whereas husband was asking divorce. Both the Courts below ought to have given a common Judgment so as to avoid any contrary observations, so also to have a compact view of the dispute between the parties and the adjudication thereof. It would be a harsh statement to make, but it has to be made just to get some disposal units, if such practice is adopted then it is depricable. The parties approaching the Court should get clear idea as to why their petition/ petitions have been either allowed or rejected and when the evidence has been led in one of the matters only, then just by taking a pursis in another matter, it is not appropriate on the part of the trial Court to pronounce a total separate Judgments in order to create any confusion. Here in this case trial Court in both the matters had given the Judgment on the same day in both the matters when in fact a common Judgment could have been given. Points for consideration in such matters would be overlapping and under such circumstance a common Judgment ought to have been given. Same happe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. was recorded. After hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate, by his judgment and order dated 22.3.2018, held the accused No.1 guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused No.2 was also held guilty for the said offence and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of ₹ 10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 9. As aforesaid, the said judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged by original accused in Criminal Appeal No.82/2018; whereas the original complainant had challenged it in criminal revision No.85/2018. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar heard both the matters together, however, delivered two separate judgments on the same date, i.e. 25.11.2019. He dismissed the criminal appeal and passed following order, - 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. The conviction order dated 22.3.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar in SCC No. 221/2013 is maintained. 3. Issue memorandum accordingly. 4. The Record and Proceeding be se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 397 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the sentence, the scope is limited. It is also observed that the Court being the Court of revision, cannot alter or modify the sentence. If he could not have modified the sentence, then he ought to have dismissed the revision. But, in any manner, he could not have adopted both the options, i.e. dismissing the appeal filed by the accused and at the same time by allowing the revision, restoring back the complaint on the file of the learned Magistrate. 13. It will not be out of place to mention here that the learned Advocate Mr.Lakhotiya submitted that the matter deserves to be sent back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for adopting a proper course and in that case, he may not make submissions on merits of the case. He, therefore, basically prayed for remanding the matters with directions that the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide both the matters together. 14. Learned Advocate for sole respondent supported the reasons assigned by learned Additional Sessions Judge and submitted that what has been held in the appeal is that confirming the finding given by the learned Magistrate that the accused has committed the offence pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /20003 and the accused intends to challenge the same; then whether any remedy is left to the accused, is a question, because he has already exhausted his remedy to challenge his conviction in the appeal. For the enhanced sentence what would be then remedy available to the accused is a question and, therefore, these consequences ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 17. The further fact to be noted from the judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision No. 85/2018 is, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not read the conviction that has been awarded by the learned Magistrate properly. The learned Magistrate, while convicting the accused No.2, apart from the simple imprisonment, had imposed fine of ₹ 10,000/-. There is absolutely no mention about giving that amount, recovered as fine, as compensation to the complainant. In the revision petition filed by the complainant, following prayer has been made, - This revision petition may pleased be allowed And the order of conviction may pleased be modified by awarding fine of double the amount of cheque and imprisonment of 2 years. So also the amount of cheque may plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
