9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2012. He preferred an appeal challenging his conviction, in Criminal Appeal No.154/2012 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - I at Hassan (for brevity, 'Sessions Judge's Court') which Court by its impugned Judgment dated 19.03.2013 dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No.1131/2000 dated 16.10.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present revision petition. 2. The present respondent has been the complainant in the Trial Court. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that the accused being known to him had availed a loan of Rs. 18,000/- from him on 03.02.1996 to meet the expenses of hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on sentence, the petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.154/2012 in the Sessions Judge's Court which Court by its Judgment dated 19.03.2013, dismissed the appeal while confirming the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is against the said Judgments of conviction and Order on sentence the accused has preferred the present revision petition. 3. In spite of service of notice upon the respondent, he has remained unrepresented. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his single sentence argument submitted that he would not challenge the impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court which was affirmed by the Appellate Court, however, he would only request this Court to take a lenient view on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 21,000/- be need not revisited or revised. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner / accused is ready and willing to pay the entire fine amount without any further delay, the Court may take a lenient view in the matter. He relies upon KANCHAN MEHTA's case (supra) in his support and draws the attention of the Court to paragraph 11 of the said Judgment which reads as below: " 11. While it is true that in Subramanium Sethuraman versus State of Maharashtra [(2004) 13 SCC 324] this Court observed that once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the CrPC, the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX of the CrPC has to be followed to take the trial to its logical conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by Section 143 of the Act which contemplates applicability of summary trial provisions, as far as possible, i.e. with such deviation as may be necessary for speedy trial in the context." 8. A reading of the said Judgment more particularly the paragraph 11 therein would clearly go to show that the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the observation to the effect that the scope of Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not for punishing drawer of a cheque whose conduct is reasonable or where compensation to the complainant to meet the ends of justice was made specifically in those circumstances, where the accused pleads himself guilty under Section 252 Cr.P.C. It is at that stage the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the punishment need not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter by the Sessions Judge's Court and subsequent to the remand of the matter also he was convicted and the same was confirmed. Therefore, the accused apart from not pleading guilty under Section 252 Cr.P.C. has made futile exercise from the year 2000 till date in proving his alleged innocence towards the alleged offence but he has failed in his repetitive attempts. In such a circumstance, I do not find any reasons for setting aside the sentence of imprisonment in toto. Considering the fact that at the earliest point of time when he was convicted for the first time in the same case by the Trial Court on 07.09.2006, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment only for two months and also imposed with fine and in the impugned Judgment pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition is partly allowed. Though the Judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act holding the accused / petitioner guilty of the alleged offence is confirmed, however, the Order on sentence is modified. While confirming the fine amount imposed at Rs. 21,000/- against the accused/petitioner, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from one year to two months and the default sentence to one month's simple imprisonment. The rest of the finding of both the Trial Court as well as the Session Judge's Court in the apportionment of the fine amount would remain unaltered. Registry to transmit copy of this Judgment to the Trial Court and Session Judge's Court along with their respective records fort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
