Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2019CRLR/3220/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged the modification of a sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act by the additional sessions judge. The High Court held that the appellate court had jurisdiction to convert imprisonment to fine and reduce the penalty, finding no illegality or irregularity in the order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed.

Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3220 of 2009 Revisionist :- Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudamaji Shandilya,Sanjay Agrawal,Sudhir Shandilya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Jitendra Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Case called out in the revised list. None is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jhansi, in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2007 (Pradeep Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sipri Bazaar, District Jhansi, whereby the appeal has been partly allowed and the sentence awarded by the Magistrate was modified to the extent that opposite party no. 2, shall pay fine of Rs. 40,000/and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 45 days. the said appeal was filed against the order dated 29.08.2007, passed in Criminal Case No. 885 of 1999 (Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi vs. Pradeep Kumar), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sipri Bazaar, District Jhansi, by which the Magistrate has convicted and sentenced the opposite party no. 2 with one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 80,000/-.

¶7

From perusal of lower court record as well as the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 has confined his argument regarding the

¶8

legality of sentence only. It was argued that the respondent/revisionist is a money lender and infact, he obtained the cheque as a guarantee for a lesser amount of loan given to the appellant. It was further argued before the lower appellate court that he was ready to repay the amount of loan to opposite party no. 2 even though the original amount is lesser in fact. According to him, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- on 03.07.2009 to respondent no. 2. It was further argued that the appellant is a Railway employee and he will suffer great hardship, if the sentence is maintained against him, as passed by learned lower appellate court.

¶9

The learned lower appellate court below after considering the arguments advanced has partly allowed the appeal and directed that the conviction of the appellant is upheld. It was further directed that the sentence is modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days. Out of the penalty amount the respondent no. 2 shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 37,000/- under Section 357 Cr.P.C. in addition to Rs. 5,000/- already received by him. The remaining amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be deposited in the State account.

¶10

In view of above, the revisionist has stated that the said modification and reduction of sentence suffers from material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error.

¶11

The jurisdiction of the learned lower appellate court cannot be challenged as while hearing appeal, the learned lower appellate court was very much authorized to convert the sentence into that of fine and also reduce the sentence of fine considering the arguments advanced before it. As such, there is no jurisdictional error nor there is any irregularity or illegality.

¶12

It is pertinent to mention that the learned Judicial Magistrate while passing the sentence of fine, had directed 50% of the fine i.e. Rs. 40,000/- to be given to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The learned lower appellate court has maintained the conviction and has made endeavour to confine the sentence to the extent of fine and has also directed for the payment of that much of amount which was earlier directed to be paid by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

¶13

In view of above, I do not find any material illegality, irregularity, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

¶15

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶16

However, the revisionist may withdraw the amount as directed by the learned lower appellate court, deposited by opposite party no. 2

¶17

Order Date :- 2.12.2019 sailesh

Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kabool Singh Vs the State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Usha Devi Vs Munendra Pal Singh and Another

Ajit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mahipal Vs State of U.P.and Others

Ghaseeta Vs Dal Chand and Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another