In a criminal revision, the High Court reviewed the sentence imposed for cheque bounce conviction, determining no enhancement was warranted given the low amount involved, and dismissed the revision.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; enhancement of sentence is refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRL.R.C.621 OF 2006
ORDER :-
On a private complaint filed by the petitioner, the 1st respondent/accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 in C.C.No.94 of 2001 on the file of the court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.
2 . The case of the complainant is that 1st respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant on 11-10-1999 and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. On demand, the 1st respondent issued a cheque bearing No.186589, dated 14-08-2000 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- drawn on Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Patnam Bazar, Guntur in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the debt. When the complainant presented the said cheque in his banker i.e., State Bank of India, Patnam Bazar Branch, Guntur for collection on 20-10-2000 the same was returned unpaid with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. After issuing a legal notice, the complainant filed a private complaint and the same was taken on file as CC No.94 of 2001 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.
3 . In support of his case, the complainant examined Pws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and also marked Ex.X-1. The 1st respondent/accused examined Dws.1 to 4 and marked Ex.D-1. After an elaborate trial, the learned Magistrate convicted
2
the accused under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.476 of 2003 before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Guntur. After considering the entire material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part confirming the conviction, but set aside the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one month while maintaining the fine amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/ complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case before this court.
4 . Heard Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
5 . This court perused the entire material on record. As seen from the material, the transaction took place in the year 2000. The amount covered by the cheque is only Rs.10,000/-. In that view of the matter, this court finds no reason to enhance the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed
in consequence.
__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J
24-03-2022. TSNR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court ought to enhance the imprisonment sentence in light of the small cheque amount and the appeal history.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Complainant
1st Respondent/Accused
K.SURESH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
