9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments to show that the goods are defective. However, learned Sessions Judge keeping in mind the nature of transaction has imposed the said sentence by modifying the amount and has awarded fine amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- in default, directed the accused-proprietor to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the above said fine amount of ₹ 5,95,000/- amount to be paid as compensation to the complainant and the remaining ₹ 5,000/- to the Government as fine. Looking into the nature of transaction and the value of the goods and the cheque amount, in my considered view, the said modification order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to be perverse or illegal. On the other hand, whatever goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties will be referred to as per their respective ranks before the trial Court, for sake of convenience. 4. Brief case of the complaint is that the complainant supplied medical surgical devices to the accused-Progressive Health Care, Bengaluru and in this regard, the accused through its proprietor, had issued cheque bearing Nos. 020830, 020831 and 020832 for ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only), ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) and ₹ 2,73,094 (Rupees Two lakhs seventy three thousand ninety four only) respectively drawn on Federal Bank Ltd. All the cheques were dated 13.12.2022. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said cheques to the Bank, but they were dishonored and returned wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hundred eighty eight only) is ordered to be remitted to the State. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Court. The accused took-up a contention that defective goods were supplied by the complainant and in fact, the complainant is liable to pay more than 2 lakhs to the accused. Therefore, they prayed to set aside the said conviction and order of sentence. After hearing the arguments, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the findings of the trial court regarding conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act by the accused but modified the sentence as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred this revision petition. 8. Heard Sri. N.M. Damodar, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which are popularly called as cheque bounce cases? 12. The respondents/accused have not challenged the confirmation of findings of the appellate Court regarding conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It has attained finality. Though the accused has not challenged the Judgment of the trial Court, but contends before Sessions Court that they are not liable to pay the said amount, the goods were defective and in fact, it is the complainant who has to pay ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to them. But, the said contention was not accepted. The appellate Court found that Ex-P-7 indicates that the accused used to purchase goods from the complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a reasonable rate. 14. So, this proposition cannot be disputed at all. The Court has to keep in mind the facts of each and impose the sentence. 15. In the present case, the records reveals that the accused were regular customers of the complainant and they used to supply medical surgical devices. The total cheque amount was ₹ 5,73,094/- (Rupees Five lakhs seventy three thousand ninety four only). It is also evident from the evidence that, earlier also accused had transaction and purchased goods to the tune of ₹ 59 to 60 lakhs, which is evident from the cross-examination evidence. The records indicate that the respondents have not submitted any documents to show that the goods are defective. However, learned Sessions Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
