9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm is that the Respondent had dealings with the complainant-firm and as per account books of the complainant-firm upto 31/03/2002 an amount of Rs. 14,74,753.40 was due from the Respondent to the complainant-firm. To repay the said amount the Respondent issued three cheques, two in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) each and one in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only). The cheques when presented, were dishonoured. The complainant-firm issued legal notices in respect of the three dishonoured cheques. As the money was not paid, three complaints came to be filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the NI Act"). 3. The trial court convicted the Respondent in each case for offence punishable u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in these appeals. 5. We are informed that the additional amount of fine imposed by the High Court has been deposited by the Respondent as directed by the High Court and the complainant-firm has received the said amount. This fact has been confirmed by the counsel for the complainant-firm. We are also informed by the counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent has undergone one year's sentence and he is a free citizen today. 6. Learned Counsel for the complainant-firm submitted that learned Magistrate had rightly sentenced the Respondent to undergo RI for two years in each of the three cases. Counsel submitted that since the amount involved in the three cases was about Rs. 14,74,753/-, the High Court ought not to have shown leniency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent and communicate his response to us. The appeals were adjourned for that purpose. Today counsel for the Respondent made a statement that the Respondent is not in a position to pay any amount. The Respondent has not even cared to remain present in the court. We are unhappy with this approach of the Respondent. It is obvious that since the Respondent has undergone one year's sentence, he is not willing to pay any amount to the complainant-firm. We shall, therefore, deal with the rival submissions. We find substance in the submission of learned Counsel that the High Court has shown undue leniency to the Respondent. No reasons have been assigned by the High Court for this approach. This Court has on several occasions cautioned t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. It is not the case of the Respondent that he has paid any amount to the complainant-firm during the pendency of these cases. He has shown scant regard to this Court's wishes. The amount involved is about Rs. 14,74,753/-. The Respondent should not have been, therefore, given a flea-bite sentence. 9. We may also refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeetu @ Jitendra where this Court has while considering as to how the appeal should be disposed of by the appellate court when there is no challenge to conviction observed that it is the obligation of the Court to decide the appeal on merits and not accept the concession and proceed to deal with the sentence, for the said mode and method defeats the fundamental purpose of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
