TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for the applicant / complainant makes a statement that the respondent No. 1 / accused has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of his conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 passed by III Jt. Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Shrirampur in STC No. 522/1995 on 10/12/1996. Order dated 29/09/2011 reveals that the respondent No. 1 / accused was served with the notice of this Criminal Revision Application and he had filed his appearance through his advocate. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 / accused when the matter is called out for hearing today. 3. Perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned trial Court reveals tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the applicant / complainant submitted that the amount covered by the cheque in question remained unpaid even after the complaint was lodged against the respondent No. 1 / accused in the trial Court and leaving the respondent No. 1 / accused on a fine of ₹ 3,000/-and ordering payment of ₹ 1,000/-from the amount of fine recovered, amounted to extending lip sympathy overlooking the object of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suganthi Suresh Kumar's case (Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan 2002 Cri. L. J. 1003 (1). According to him, the sentence imposed is not based on the facts revealed before the trial Court and, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid, learned trial Court heard the respondent No. 1 / accused and the complainant. Impugned judgment reveals that the learned counsel for the accused pleaded for leniency on the ground that the accused aged about 55 years, belonged to middle class family and was only earning hand in his family. Countering these submissions the learned counsel for the applicant / complainant submitted that the sentence comprising of minimum imprisonment and minimum fine be imposed. It is in this back drop, the learned trial Court took a lenient view and proceeded to impose sentence of fine of ₹ 3,000/-in default simple imprisonment for two months. Thus, it can be seen that the facts pleaded for leniency were not disputed by the applicant / complaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, therefore, the complainant had a minimum expectation, and reasonably so, of the payment due under the said cheque. This fact has been completely overlooked by the learned trial Court leading it to land itself in error. There is nothing before this Court to suggest that the amount due under the cheque has been repaid. In the result, the sentence imposed by the trial Court needs to be modified as follows. ORDER Respondent No. 1 / accused shall pay a fine of ₹ 28,000/-(Rupees Twenty Eight thousand) and i.d. of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months and on realisation of fine amount, a sum of ₹ 25,000/-be paid to the complainant. Bail bond of the respondent No. 1 / accused stands cancel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
