Pintu vs Chandrashekhar
2024 Latest Caselaw 6679 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pintu vs Chandrashekhar on 5 March, 2024

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                 ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2024
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6270 of 2019

                           BETWEEN:-
                           PINTU S/O OMPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
                           VILLAGE BADANIYA, TEHSIL HATOD, (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI AMIT BHATIA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ).

                           AND
                           CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O NANURAM, AGED ABOUT 35
                           YEARS, VILLAGE CHIMANKHEDI, TEHSIL DEPALPUR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                           (SHRI AAYUSH PANDEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
                           [R-1]).


                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed by the

21st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Cr.A.No.127/2018, affirming the judgment dated 12.03.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in criminal case No.972/2016, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 138 of N.I. Act 1881 and sentenced for 06 months R.I. and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with default stipulations.

2. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds

but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merits and not assailed the finding of conviction part. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone approximately 20 days in jail incarceration, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioner deserves some leniency as the petitioner already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2016 i.e. for a period of 07 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the

impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.

4. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper.

5. However, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that both the courts below have categorically found that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner and he is specifically liable to discharge his liability towards the amount of cheque. Both the Courts below have well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by both the Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld.

6. So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, the submissions has been made by the petitioner that the petitioner has already deposited the compensation amount before the Court below in favour of the respondent. The

petitioner has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2016 and there is no criminal record/antecedents of the petitioner, therefore, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone with the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- under Section 138 of N.I. Act, to be paid by the petitioner within a period one month from today. The enhanced amount of Rs.20,000- would be the additional compensation amount of already paid compensation amount i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-. Respondent is at liberty to withdraw the amount. In default of payment of enhanced compensation amount, the petitioner shall further to undergo for one month S.I.

8. Since the petitioner is already on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.

9. A copy of this order be send to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VD