TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld make it clear that the complainant has proved the alleged guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt - both the trial Court, as well as the Sessions Judge's Court have convicted and confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act respectively. In the instant case, the petitioner/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Since in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence ordered by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court being proportionate to the gravit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.10.2017, drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards the repayment of the debt. However, the said cheque when presented for realisation, returned unpaid with the banker's endorsement as funds insufficient . The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 17.10.2017 to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. In spite of receipt of notice, since the accused did not pay the cheque amount, the complainant was constrained to file a criminal case against him in the trial Court in C.C. No. 27729/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, charges were framed against the accused for the alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sity, illegality, impropriety warranting any interference at the hands of this Court . 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his very brief argument submitted that the trial Court had granted eight adjournments for the cross-examination of PW-1 and on all those dates, the accused was present before the Court, however, his counsel did not appear. On the next date of hearing, when the accused had remained absent, the trial Court proceeded to take the cross-examination of PW-1 as 'Nil', as such, an opportunity be given to the accused to cross-examine PW-1 and to lead his evidence. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments submitted that sufficient opportunities have already been given to the accused in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial Court records would also go to show that after the date 23.07.2018, when the cross-examination of PW-1 was taken as 'Nil', till the date of pronouncement of the impugned judgment by the trial Court, which was on 03.11.2018, not less than seven dates of hearing have been passed. On none of these occasions, the accused filed any application seeking recalling of PW-1 for his cross-examination and for the accused side evidence. On the other hand, the trial Court record would go to show that the accused had remained absent. As such, even to secure the address of the accused, the trial Court had to issue non-bailable warrant to the accused, which also remained unexecuted. Thereafter, the bail bonds were cancelled and the cash suret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment in the trial court. In fact, cross-examination of complainant to be conducted by the counsel engaged by the accused. Only responsibility of the accused was to give proper instruction for cross-examination. I do not find any reason either to disagree with the reason given by the trial Court to proceed further in the matter in pronouncing the judgment or with the reasoning given by the Sessions Judge's Court by not considering the request for giving an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine PW-1. After giving not less than eight opportunities to cross-examine PW-1 to the accused and still the accused remaining absent and not even amenable to non-bailable warrant ordered against him, would itself go to show that he had de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as the Sessions Judge's Court have convicted and confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act respectively. 21. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered should not be either exorbitant nor for name sake for the proven guilt. It must be proportionate to the gravity of the guilt for which the accused is found guilty of. In the instant case, the petitioner/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Since in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence ordered by the tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
