Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a partial allowance of appeal regarding a cheque dishonour case, finding no illegality in the enhanced fine and compensation awarded.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed at the admission stage.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.907 of 2009
(Dated : 8.10.2009)
Between:Smt.V.Lalitha W/o Laxmi Prasad R/o 26/2, Lalaguda, Secunderabad.
…petitioner
A n d
Smt. V.Lakshmi W/o Rammohan Rao Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.LIG, 506, Bharathnagar, Hyderabad and another …Respondents
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 22.01.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the accused in part, setting aside the sentence of imprisonment while enhancing the fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.60,000/. Out of the fine amount of Rs.60,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation.
2. The operative portion of the judgment dated 22.1.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2008 reads as hereunder:
“ In the result, the appeal is allowed in part confirming the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and modified the sentence from simple imprisonment for year and fine of Rs.2,000/- into fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Appellant already paid fine amount of
Rs.2,000/- before the trial Court. Out of the fine amount Rs.60,000/- (Rs.2,000/- already collected +Rs.58,000/- to be collected), Rs.50,000/- shall be given to the respondent towards compensation. The respondent is at liberty to take the draft deposited by the appellant and withdraw the amount”.
3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 9.6.2009. The petitioner has been permitted to take out fresh notice to the 1st respondentcomplainant by registered post acknowledgment due on 3.8.2009. The case was listed on 10.9.2009 and 17.9.2009. No proof of service has been filed. Even there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner when the revision is taken up.
4. Perused the judgment impugned in the revision as well as the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.845 of 2004.
5. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, by judgment dated 12.12.2007. The accused filed Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2008 assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.845 of 2004. The appellate Court, on reappraisal of the evidence and in view of the accused depositing the cheque amount in Court, proceeded to allow the appeal in part setting aside the sentence of imprisonment while enhancing the fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.60,000/-
and granted Rs.50,000/- towards compensation out of the fine amount, by judgment dated 22.1.2009. The said judgment is assailed in this revision.
6. The appellate Court has considered the facts and circumstances and more particularly, the payment of the cheque amount by way of draft pending the appeal and thereby, proceeded to take a lenient view with regard to imposition of sentence. Cogent and convincing reasons have been assigned by the appellate Court for taking a lenient view with regard to the quantum of sentence. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397(1) or 401 Cr.P.C.
7. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.
____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
08th October 2009 RAR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.907 of 2009
DATED : 08-10-2009
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision Court should interfere with the appellate Court's enhanced fine and compensation order under Section 138 NI Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. V. Lalitha W/o Laxmi Prasad
Smt. V. Lakshmi W/o Rammohan Rao
Another
B. Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
