AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Heard the counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
Petition is filed by the Petitioner u/s 407 Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer the Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2004 from the file of Fast Track
Court No. IV, Bhavani to this Court to be heard along with Crl. R.C. No. l161 of 2004, which is pending for enhancement of the sentence.
The facts which led to the filing of this petition in brief are as follows: The Petitioner has filed Criminal complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act for the dishonoured amount of Rs. 5,20,000/-. On completion of trial, Respondents 2 and 3 were convicted for one year simple
imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs. 24,000/- each and in default to undergo a sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment. The first
Respondent was imposed a fine of Rs. 12,000/- and in default to undergo a sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved over the
conviction, Respondents/accused have preferred Criminal Appeal in C.A. No. 71 of 2004, which is now pending on the file of Fast Track Court
No. IV, Bhavani. The amount involved in the cheque is Rs. 5,20,000/-. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents had received the loan of Rs.
4,00,000/- and in acknowledgment of the liability including the interest, issued the cheque dated 16.5.1999 for Rs. 5,20,000/- on behalf of the first
Respondent company to discharge the aforesaid liability. The Petitioner has filed Crl.R.C. No. l161 of 2004 before this Court for enhancing the
punishment made in C.C. No. 183 of 1999 on the ground that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the Respondents is inadequate. Hence
the Petitioner seeks to transfer Cr.A. No. 71 of 2004 to the file of this Court for trying it along with Crl.R.C. No. l161 of 2004.
The scope of enquiry in a first appeal is entirely different viz., to go into the assessment of the evidence of the trial Court and the reasonings,
whereas the scope of enquiry in a Criminal revision case for enhancement of sentence is limited to assess whether the sentence has to be enhanced
or not. In that view of the matter, common points for determination are not involved. If Crl.A. No. 71 of 2004 is transferred to this Court, the
Respondents/accused would be deprived of an opportunity of appeal, which would cause prejudice to them. If at all this Court enhances the
sentence in Crl.R.C.I 161 of 2004, there would be no difficulty in adding the same in the sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate in C.C. No.
183 of 1999. In that view of the matter, no valid grounds are made out to transfer the Crl.A. No. 71 of 2004 pending on the file of Fast Track
Court No. IV, Bhavani to the file of this Court. The petition is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 8657 of 2004 is also dismissed.