HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Criminal Revision Case No.1459 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case is filed by the de-facto complainant questioning the adequacy of the sentence of fine of Rs.5000/- imposed by the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Vijayawada while convicting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') in CC No.414 of 2005.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the learned Magistrate having believed the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 erred in imposing only fine amount and that the learned Magistrate should have at least imposed the fine of double the cheque amount.
The case of the de-facto complainant is that the on 29.06.2003, the accused, who is the first respondent herein, borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- for her family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and executed a pronote as a collateral security and that she issued a cheque on 19.10.2004 for Rs.40,000/- drawn on State Bank of Travancore towards part payment of the amount due under the pronote; when the complainant presented the same for collection on 28.03.2005, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' vide memo dated 28.04.2005; on 27.04.2005 the complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused, which was acknowledged by her on 28.04.2005, but failed to respond. Hence, he filed the complaint.
On considering the evidence of PW.1, Exs.P.1 to P.7 and taking the mercy pleaded by the accused, the learned Magistrate convicted the 2 KVL, J Crl.R.C.No.1459 of 2007 accused and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Questioning the adequacy of the sentence of imposing of fine only by the learned Magistrate on the accused, the de-facto complainant preferred the present revision.
The first respondent-accused faced prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and was convicted for the said offence. According to the evidence of DW.1-accused, she stood as a guarantor to one Pushpavathi, who is a close associate of complainant's wife and in that connection she handed over a blank cheque. As the accused admitted her signature on both pronote and cheque, which were marked as Exs.P.1 and P.2, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- on the accused.
As the accused is a government employee and if she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment, she may lose her job, the learned Magistrate has taken a lenient view by imposing fine on the accused. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 Cr.P.C. gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior Court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provision of law, findings recorded are based on 3 KVL, J Crl.R.C.No.1459 of 2007 no evidence or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive clauses but merely indicating and each case would depend on its own merit.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no grounds to revise the order of the trial Court and accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this revision case, shall stand closed.
_______________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 01.10.2021 BSS 4 KVL, J Crl.R.C.No.1459 of 2007 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Crl.R.C. No.1459 of 2007 41 Date: 01.10.2021 BSS