9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainant along with imprisonment of six months. In the considered opinion of the Court, awarding simple imprisonment for a period of six months is not supported by valid reasons. Therefore, to that extent, this Court is of the opinion that the simple imprisonment of six months is excessive and the same needs to be set aside. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the pandemic COVID-19, granting three months with fine of ₹ 39,000/- less the amount deposited before the First Appellate Court would meet the ends of justice - Revision petition allowed in part. - CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 241 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2021 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA FOR THE PETITION ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory notice dated 12-11-2008 and despite the service of legal notice, the accused failed to repay the cheque amount nor replied, which necessitated the complainant to file a complaint against the accused. 3. Learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence, secured the presence of the accused and plead was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and hence, the trial held. In order to prove the fact, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked six documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the accused denied all incriminating circumstances put to him. The accused also examined himself as D.W.1, but did not place any documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been blindly accepted by the First Appellate Court and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. In this revision petition, though the complainant is served, he remains unrepresented. Thus, in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the following points arise for my consideration: i. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.397 of 2013 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge is erroneous? ii. Whether the sentence is excessive? 7. In the case on hand, Ex.P.1-cheque issued to the complainant is signed by the accused. Admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, the learned Magistrate awarded fine of ₹ 39,000/-, out of which, ₹ 37,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant along with imprisonment of six months. 10. In the considered opinion of the Court, awarding simple imprisonment for a period of six months is not supported by valid reasons. Therefore, to that extent, this Court is of the opinion that the simple imprisonment of six months is excessive and the same needs to be set aside. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the pandemic COVID-19, granting three months with fine of ₹ 39,000/- less the amount deposited before the First Appellate Court would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the points rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
