THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1724, 1725, 1834 and
1837 of 2006
COMMON ORDER:
Since the parties and the issue involved in all these criminal
revision cases are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. These revision petitions are preferred by the complainant
aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned XIV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act') for imposing a
fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty
days against the accused in all the cases, after finding them guilty for
the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3. The complainant preferred these revisions contending that
the fine amount was very meager and a lenient view was taken by the
learned Magistrate without recording any special reasons for imposing
a nominal fine when there were no extenuating or mitigating
circumstances and ought to have made over the fine amount to the
complainant in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate erred in
overlooking the fact that it was purely a commercial transaction and
as such maximum punishment should have been imposed upon the
respondent/accused in terms of Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act
Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.R.C. No.1724 of 2006&batch and prayed to modify the impugned judgments by imposing double the cheque amount in each case.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted to dispose of these criminal revision cases in terms of Crl.R.C. Nos.1712 of 2006 and batch which were disposed of by this Court on 26.02.2020.
6. The provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act provide for imposition of fine amount twice the cheque amount. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is primarily a civil wrong. In exercise of its powers under Section 143 of the NI Act read with Section 258 Cr.P.C., the Court can close the proceedings where the cheque amount with interest and costs was paid by a specified date. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Motors and Instruments Private Limited and another v. Kanchan Mehta1 it is considered appropriate to enhance the fine amount to double the cheque amount.
7. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Somnath Sarkar v. Utpal Basu Mallick and another2 the fine amount is directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
1 (2018)1 Supreme Court cases 560 2 2013) 16 SCC 465 Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.R.C. No.1724 of 2006&batch
8. Hence, all the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and in each of the case, the accused shall pay double the cheque amount as fine which in turn shall be paid as compensation to the complainant after deducting a sum of Rs.5,000/- in each case, which was paid by him earlier as per the orders of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty (30) days.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J October 28, 2021.
KTL