9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he trial court convicted the accused respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹ 20,000 only, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The cheque amount involved was ₹ 1,52,500. The trial court did not impose the sentence of fine proportionate to twice that of the cheque amount as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal before the sessions judge. 2. The sessions judge holds that in the first place, an appeal is not maintainable against the sentence in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prosecuted by way of a private complaint under Section 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending in appeal. 5. It is not in dispute that the amounts involved in the disputed cheques are also the subject matter before the consumer forum. I find that the sessions judge was in a way correct in holding that an appeal would not lie on the question of inadequacy of sentence in respect of a private complaint. If appeal was not maintainable on the jurisdictional grounds, appeal should have been dismissed without adverting to the merits of the case. The proceedings before the sessions judge were in the nature of appeal; the present proceedings do not amount to a second revision. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court cited by counsel for the respondent has no application to the facts of the case. 6. It is true that in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore that cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the petitioner. In that view, I find the trial court committed grave illegality in not imposing the sentence as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the court below are set aside. The respondent is directed to pay a fine of twice the cheque amount, in default the respondent accused to undergo S. I. for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount levied ₹ 10,000 to be defrayed by the State towards prosecution expenses and balance to be paid as compensation to the complainant/ petitioner. 8. Counsel for the respondent submits that a sum of ₹ 20,000 of fine imposed is already paid if it is so the same can be deducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
