AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the the common order dated 25.10.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, in
S.T.R.Nos.2110 and 2111 of 2005, these criminal revision cases are focussed.
Compendiously and concisely, the case of the revision petitioner, as stood exposited from the revision petitions would run thus:
The learned Magistrate even though found the respondent/second accused guilty of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
nonetheless imposed the following minimum sentence:
S.T.R. No. 2110/2002:
the second accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo one month S.I. for the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act and also he is ordered to pay a
compensation of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the complainant u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. The sentence imposed in this case, shall run concurrently,
with the sentence imposed in STR. No. 2111 of 2002 as both STR 2111/2002 and this case have arisen out of same transaction.
S.T.R. No. 2111/12002:
the second respondent is convicted and sentenced to undergo one month S.I.for the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and also he is
ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 65,000/- as compensation to the complainant u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. The sentence imposed in this case shall
run concurrently with the sentence imposed in STR 2110/2002 as both STR 2110/2002 and this case have arisen out of same transaction.
The learned Magistrate unmindful of the severity of the offence, simply awarded such lenient punishment, warranting interference by this Court.
Hence, this revision.
Even though the matter was posted on 15.6.2009, nevertheless the revision petitioner did not appear. Even today also no one represents the
revision petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent also.
A bare perusal of the judgement of the lower Court would reveal that the respondent/second accused issued cheques for Rs. 75000/- and Rs.
70,000/- respectively, which got bounced and despite statutory notice issued, there was no positive response from the accused. Hence, the
complaints.
The trial Court, after conducting enquiry held that out of the sum of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- a sum of Rs. 65,000/- was paid in the matter
relating to S.T.R. No. 2110 of 2002 (i.e.Crl.R.C. No. 177 of 2006), as evidenced by five cash receipts and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid in the
matter relating to S.T.R. No. 2111 of 2002 (i.e.Crl.R.C. No. 181 of 2006), as evidenced by four cash receipts. According to the finding of the
lower Court, there remained only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- yet to be paid in S.T.R. No. 2110 of 2002 and Rs. 45,000/- in S.T.R. No. 2111 of
2002. Hence, the learned Magistrate applying his mind took a lenient view and imposed the above said sentences.
The revision petitioner, in the grounds of revisions would implore and entreat this Court to impose higher punishments.
I am of the considered opinion that absolutely there is no reason much less valid reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In
paragraph 8 of the order, the learned Magistrate clearly and categorically spelt out that out of the sum of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 70,000/-
concerning the bounced cheques, a sum of Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-, respectively, were paid and there remained only a sum of Rs. 10,000/-
and Rs. 45,000/- are yet to be paid by the defendant. As such, taking into consideration the over all circumstances and the mitigating factors
involved in the matter, the learned Magistrate took such a lenient view and also ordered the sentence of imprisonment imposed in STR. No. 2110
of 2002 to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment imposed in S.T.R. No. 2111 of 2002, as both the cases arose out of the same
transaction. The learned Magistrate, taking into consideration the penological principles, appropriately and appositely, convincingly and correctly
by stating reasons, imposed such punishment, warranting no interference by this Court. Accordingly, I could see no merit in the criminal revision
cases and the same are dismissed.