9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision petitioner / accused stated that the revision petitioner / accused was ready to pay the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- as agreed before the Court on 04.02.2022. But the learned counsel for the respondent / complainant stated that the complainant is not ready for compromise as the accused had not produced the Demand Draft even on the said date. Considering the object of the Act, it is considered fit to modify the sentence of imprisonment to fine and to pay the same as compensation to the complainant for the amount directed by this Court on 04.02.2020. As the revision petitioner / accused reported ready to pay the amount as suggested by this Court on 04.02.2020, and as stated by the Hon ble Apex Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited [ 2017 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT] that though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in the absence of such consent, the Court, in the interest of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed on condition of the revision petitioner / accused to produce the Demand Draft for an amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence on record, and on considering the presumptions in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, the Trial Court found the accused guilty. The trial Court also by considering Section 27 of General Clauses Act, opined that notice of demand issued under Section 138 Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of N.I. Act sent to the accused was sufficient service. It found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2011 before the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 8. The appellant failed to argue the matter before the lower Appellate Court. However, the lower Appellate Court considered the evidence on record and passed the judgment on merits on 17.06.2013 confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, and dismissed the appeal. 9. Assailing the same, the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he letter at the address mentioned in the letter, and therefore presumed that notice was delivered to the addressee. 14. The lower Appellate Court also observed that Ex.P.1-Cheque contained the signature of the accused, and the said cheque was generated from the account of the accused and when once the accused admitted his signature on the subject matter of the cheque which was returned, a presumption would arise that the cheque was drawn for consideration on the date on which the cheque bore, and the Court had to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability and relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [2000 (1) ALT (Crl) 42 S.C.] and also of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Laxminivas Agarwal vs. Andhra Semi Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 1 ALD Crl. 300 (A.P) and confirmed the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 15. The lower Appellate Court also observed that the office copy of the legal notice and unserved registered postal receipts (marked under Exs.P.4 to P.11) would reveal that the complainant made full efforts in serving the notice o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le difficulty to the complainant, as invariably the limitation for filing civil cases would expire by the time the criminal case was decided. 29. In R. Vijayan vs. Baby and another (supra) this Court observed that unless there were special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, the Court should uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount and keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss, direct payment of such amount as compensation. This Court rightly observed that uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts not only increases the credibility of the cheque as a Negotiable Instrument but also the credibility of the Courts of Justice. 18. Similarly, the Hon ble Apex Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and others vs. Kanchan Mehta AIR 2017 SC 4594 held as under : 18. From the above discussion following aspects emerge: i) Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view of presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is preponderance of probabilitie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sation under Section 357(3) is considered inadequate, having regard to the amount of the cheque, the financial capacity and the conduct of the accused or any other circumstances. 19. This Court by Docket order dated 04.02.2020 passed in this Criminal Revision Case No.1330 of 2013 held as under : In those circumstances, as per the offer made by the petitioner, if interest is calculated on the principal amount of Rs.80,000/- as of date, then it would work out to Rs.2,03,200/- and if a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards fine is added, finally, it would come to Rs.2,13,200/- but, the petitioner is willing to pay the second respondent a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) which is considered to be reasonable, in the facts of the present case. However, the petitioner submits that he would pay the said amount in three monthly intalments. 20. Though said Docket Order was passed on 04.02.2020, the petitioner / accused failed to make the payment till date. 21. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 23.08.2022, learned counsel for the revision petitioner / accused stated that the revision petitioner / accused was ready to pay the amount of Rs.2,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
