9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount of compensation out of his own volition. Accordingly, there are no perversity or irregularity in the observation of learned Chief Judge, that the petitioner on one hand challenged the quantum of the sentence and on the other hand received the amount of compensation without the permission from the Court. The facts and circumstances of the present case does not merit enhancement of the compensation imposed by the learned trial court - Application dismissed. - C. R. R. 399 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2022 - THE HON BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachit Talukdar, Adv. Mr. Saumendra Mohan Rakshit, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Ms. Sayanti Santra, Adv. ORDER BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J. : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments Act was initiated against the opposite party. (v) Thereafter considering the evidence and materials on record the learned trial court by judgment and order dated 29.06.2012 convicted the opposite party for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in addition to Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the petitioner in pursuance of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (vi) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the meagre and inadequate quantum of sentence and compensation imposed by the learned trial court the petitioner filed a criminal revisional application bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot impose a flea bite sentence on the accused as in imposing a lesser sentence the very object of the enactment would stand defeated. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in H.Pukhraj versus D. Parasmal reported in (2015) 17 SCC 368. He further submitted that by way of filing an application before the learned trial court the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn, however, such withdrawal was without any prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek an enhancement of compensation and sentence. In view of his above submissions he prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. In reply to the contention raised on behalf of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 19 [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: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there has to be compensation equaling to twice the cheque amount. Mr.Talukdar, learned advocate referring to the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court passed in H.Pukhraj (supra) submitted that there should not be a flea bite sentence on the accused for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The facts of the cited decision shows that the cheque amount involved in the said case was Rs.6,19,488/-. The trial court on conviction sentenced the convict to undergo 6 months imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.4000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months further imprisonment. There was no imposition of compensation by the trial court. Whereas in the case in hand the learned trial M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner has not made any submissions that he intends to withdraw the compensation amount without prejudice to his right to seek enhancement. Thus, the aforesaid materials clearly indicate that the petitioner withdrew the amount of compensation out of his own volition. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity or irregularity in the observation of learned Chief Judge, that the petitioner on one hand challenged the quantum of the sentence and on the other hand received the amount of compensation without the permission from the Court. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop the facts and circumstances of the present case does not merit enhancement of the compensation imposed by the learned trial court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revisional applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
