9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit ordered that the complainant has to receive the amount of Rs.1 crore and if the accused fails to pay the same, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. There are no justifiable grounds to enhance the compensation amount, since the award of compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonour of cheque should be practical and realistic. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed. - CRL.P.No.7778 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2022 - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SANTHOSH REDDY Petitioner and Advocate : A. Hanumantha Reddy Respondent and Advocate : Public Prosecutor (TG) ORDER: This criminal petition is directed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to modify the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.93 of 2015 by the learned III-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by enhancing the fine amount equivalent to twice the cheque amount i.e., Rs.2 crores along with interest and costs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner-complainant. None represented the 2nd respondent-accused. Perused the material on record. 3. The complainant, which is a company represented by its Company Secretary, filed a compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine imposed by the trial court. However, the learned Sessions Judge enhanced the fine amount from Rs.20,000/- imposed by the trial court to Rs.1,00,00,000/-. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.93 of 2015 before the learned Sessions Judge for awarding compensation equivalent to twice the cheque amount i.e., Rs.2 crores along with interest and costs. The said petition was disposed of holding that since the appellate court in Crl.A.No.278 of 2015 has enhanced the fine amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.1 crore which is equivalent to the cheque amount and since the accused had paid the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- before the trial court, the accused was directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.98,80,000/- . 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that both the courts below had rightly found the accused guilty and, accordingly, convicted him for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, both the courts below, having considered award of compensation to the complainant, ought to have awarded the same equivalent to twice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed that the complainant had deposited the cheque Ex.P-1 issued by the accused for realization, but the bank returned the same with a memo under Ex.P-3 for the reason stop payments . P.W.4, who is Chief Manager of UCO Bank i.e., the banker of the accused, deposed that the accused was having a balance of Rs.5,054/- in his account which is reflected in the statement of the account of the accused, marked as Ex.P-16. 11. The defence purforth by the accused is that the disputed cheque was given by him under coercion and threat and alleged that the complainant had defaulted in payment of rent and that he has not handed over the possession of the leased premises. In order to prove the said contention, the complainant adduced the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3. However, a careful perusal of their evidence discloses that there is no inconsistency and it appears that the said defence was taken by the accused only to escape from the liability. The trial court as well as the appellate court had examined the evidence adduced by the parties in detail and have disbelieved the version of defence and held that the complainant has proved the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act and, accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realisation of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special circumstances, the Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum . 15. Section 138 of the NI Act provides that where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of the Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. 16. The learned Sessions Judge has categorically held that the complainant herein has filed criminal revision petition for enhancement of the fine amount stating that the trial court has imposed only meager amount of Rs.20,000/- towards fine apart from imprisonment for one year and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
