9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for one year and also considering the fact that even the Sessions Judge's Court also has not given its reasoning for confirming the said sentence of imprisonment, the said sentence of imprisonment of one year as simple imprisonment apart from payment of the fine amount is not proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt against the accused. On the other hand, it is slightly exorbitant to the proven guilt. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the fact that the accused made two trips before the Trial Court as well as the Session Judge's Court and thus has made a futile exercise in ensuring the setting aside of his conviction which consequently has made the complainant to be deprived of the cheque amount for more than two decades, confining the sentence only to the fine amount would not meet the ends of justice and imposing the sentence of imprisonment is also warranted in the circumstances of the case - However, one year simple imprisonment imposed since being on the higher side, the circumstances of the case warrant confining it to two months simple imprisonment which was originally and at the earliest point of time imposed agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o institute the complaint against him. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter. After recording the evidence led by both side and hearing the arguments, the Trial Court by its Judgment dated 16.10.2012 convicted the accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of ₹ 21,000/-. In default to make payment of the fine amount, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount of ₹ 21,000/-, a sum of ₹ 18,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant and remaining sum of ₹ 3,000/- was directed to be paid to the State. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and Order 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 spi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [(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 conclusion, the said judgment was rendered as per statutory provisions prior to the 2002 amendment. The statutory scheme post- 2002 amendment as considered in Mandvi Coop. Bank [(2010) 3 SCC 83] and J.V. Baharuni [ (2014) 10 SCC 494] has brought about a change in law and it needs to be recognised. After 2002 amendment, Section 143 of the Act confers implied power on the Magistrate to discharge the accused if the complainant is compensated to the satisfaction of the Court, where the accused tenders the cheque amount with interest and reasonable cost of litigation as assessed by the Court. Such an interpretation was consistent with the intention of legislature. The court has to balance the rights of the complainant and the accused and also to enhance access to justice. Basic object of the law is to enhance credibility of the cheque transactions by providing speedy remedy to the complainant without intending to punish the drawer of the cheque whose conduct is rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present petitioner preferred criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge's Court in Crl. A. No.154/2012 which came to be dismissed on its merit by the Judgment dated 19.03.2013. 10. Thus it is crystal clear that the revision petitioner / accused had made a voyage of two rounds before the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court in the matter and prior to the remanding of the 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 passed by the Trial Court, it has not given any reason for se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
