In this criminal revision concerning a cheque dishonour under Section 138, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused. However, it set aside the six-month imprisonment sentence and enhanced the fine from Rs.3,000 to Rs.50,000.
Conviction confirmed; imprisonment set aside; fine enhanced to Rs. 50,000 payable by March 15, 2013.
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 RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.324 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment, dated 21.1.2006 passed by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.67 of 2005.
The complainant, which is a private limited company, filed a private complaint before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that the petitioner-accused is indebted to the complainantcompany, for which, he issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.50,165/towards discharge of the debt and when the same was presented for realization, it was dishonoured. In spite of notice, the petitioneraccused failed to pay the cheque amount. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner-accused.
In order to substantiate its case, the complainant examined P.W.1 and got Exs.P1 to P8 marked on its behalf. The petitioneraccused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D1 on his behalf.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioneraccused filed appeal viz., Crl.A.No.67 of 2005 before the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court
in C.C.No.483 of 2001. Challenging the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the petitioner-accused filed the present revision.
Today, though the matter was listed under the caption “for dismissal”, none appeared for the petitioner-accused.
Perused the material available on record and the judgments of both the Courts below.
In the circumstances of the case and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below as to the guilt of the petitioneraccused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts below against the petitioneraccused for the said offence. But however, taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the quantum of cheque amount involved in this case, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and the fine amount is enhanced.
In the result, the conviction recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is hereby set aside while enhancing the fine amount imposed by the Courts below from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner-accused is directed to pay the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 15th March, 2013. In default, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The amount of fine of Rs.50,000/-, if paid, shall be given to the complainant.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.
_____________ RAJA ELANGO, J
24th December, 2012 Nn
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.324 of 2006
24.12.2012
Nn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to confirm the conviction and interference with the enhanced sentence imposed by the lower appellate court.
Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be set aside and the fine enhanced.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner-Accused
Complainant
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
