9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Fast Track Court-II, Howrah arising out of the judgment and order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Court, Howrah in complaint case no. 1182 C of 2006. 3. Learned trial court after contested hearing convicted the accused person/Respondent no.2 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment of three months and also directed to pay compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounting to Rs. 3,25,000/- to the complainant, Arun Kumar Chattopadhyay and acquitted respondent no.1 Smt. Rupa Karpas. But said order of sentence was revised by the appellate court by his impugned judgment dated 6th September, 2018 to the extent that the Appellant/ accused no. 2 to suffer sentence of simple impri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate court is of the view that the Trial Court judgment is reasoned and well written. The relevant portion of the judgment needs to be quoted in the present context: "The impugned judgment is a reasoned and well-written one. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the portion relating to sentence needs to be modified. The Learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the accused no. 2 for committing offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The learned Magistrate was also right in acquitting the accused no. 1. However, the term of sentence imposed upon the accused no. 2 appear to me to be excessive. I am of the opinion that in cases involving offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act justice can be served better if the complaint is provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cheque is Rs. 2,96,223.76p. There is no case for the convict/opposite party that the said amount has been paid, which if paid might have justified for imposing a flea- bite sentence by Appellate Court. There is a requirement in law that every conviction should be followed by an appropriate sentence within the period stipulated in law. There is a need for the courts to apply it's mind while imposing sentence. In the instant case, the Appellate Court while correcting the convict for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act which has maximum sentence upto two years, thought it fit to impose the sentence till rise of court , without applying it's mind as to why it should be reduced from three months to "till rise of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e object of the legislation. No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonour of the cheque issued by him light-heartedly. The very object of enactment of provisions like Section 138 of the Act would stand defeated if the sentence is of the nature passed by the trial Magistrate. It is a different matter if the accused paid the amount at least during the pendency of the case". 10. In view of the above the impugned judgment dated 6/9/2018 is set aside only to the extent that the sentence as awarded by the trial court shall remain unaltered. The finding of both the courts below respondent no. 2 as convict and acquitting respondent no.1 on the ground that she is not the drawer of the cheque, remains uninterfered by this court. Opposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
