Nirmala vs Deepak
2024 Latest Caselaw 6524 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nirmala vs Deepak on 4 March, 2024

                                  1
 IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT JABALPUR
                              BEFORE
                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                       ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2542 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
NIRMALA W/O RAMKRISHNA TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 62
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O H.NO. 509,
PODDAR COLONY, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI PARVEZ AHMED QUAZI - ADVOCATE)

AND
DEEPAK S/O GAJANAN MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, R/O INFRONT OF H.NO. 509, PODDAR COLONY,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENT


       This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.26/2021 whereby the judgment of conviction passed by the JMFC, Sagar in RCT No.562/2017 has been modified.

2. The Trial Court had convicted the present respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the respondent had been sentenced to RI for one year and compensation amount of Rs.6,24,149/- with default stipulation.

3. The appellate court has confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence part in the terms that the jail sentence has been set aside but the compensation amount has been enhanced by Rs.1.00 lakh and now the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.7,24, 149/- has been awarded to the present applicant with default stipulation.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant while assailing the appellate order submits that the compensation amount is at a lower side and the appellate court had erred in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.7.24 lakhs, which as per learned counsel for the applicant is grossly insufficient.

5. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that looking

to the conduct of the present respondent, the jail sentence ought not to have been set aside and the present respondent had committed a crime and the appellate court should not have relieved him of jail sentence.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, admits that against the compensation of Rs.6.24 lakhs awarded by the Trial Court, he had not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Thus, it appears to this Court that the applicant was satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Trial Court to the tune of Rs.6.24 lakhs.

7. Even otherwise, the cheque was of Rs.4.50 lakhs payable in the year 2017 and in the year 2023, compensation amount of Rs.7.24 lakhs has been awarded which translates to an approximate increase of 60% amount from the original amount of cheque.

8. It also appears from the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant that respondent is in Government service. Looking to overall circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the case is of cheque bounce and the present applicant has been amply compensated with compensation amount, no

error can be found in the judgment passed by the appellate court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

9. The present revision sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE DV