9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves a criminal revision challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence and compensation amount. Issue 1: Conviction and Sentence Modification The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, which was later modified to Rs. 3,90,780/-. The petitioner challenged this judgment in a criminal revision, arguing that the conviction was vitiated as cognizance was taken before the expiry of the statutory period. The High Court held that the trial court's initiation of prosecution before the statutory period did not absolve the accused from criminal liability, especially when no payment was made. The court also addressed the argument that the cheques were drawn on a closed account, citing legal precedents to support the view that such actions still constitute an offense under Section 138 of the Act. Issue 2: Legal Arguments and Precedents The legal arguments presented by the petitioner's advocate focused on various grounds, including the timing of cognizance, the status of the account on which the cheques were drawn, and the nature of the liability. The advocate relied on specific court decisions to support these arguments. In response, the complainant's advocate contested these submissions and referred to different legal precedents to counter the petitioner's claims. The State's advocate supported the arguments of the complainant's advocate during the proceedings. Issue 3: Revisional Jurisdiction and Conclusion The High Court emphasized the limitations of revisional jurisdiction, stating that unless there are glaring features of manifest illegality leading to a gross miscarriage of justice, it is inappropriate for the court to reevaluate evidence already considered by lower courts. After considering the submissions and evidence, the High Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the criminal revision. The court confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but set aside the order of sentence of fine. The case was remanded back to the Trial Court to pass necessary orders on the question of sentence and compensation in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the previous reduction of compensation by the Appellate Court. This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key legal issues, arguments, and conclusions reached by the High Court in the case.
|
