TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the proceeding before the Sessions Judge amounted to a second revision and was therefore not maintainable, and (ii) whether the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be sustained in view of parallel proceedings before the consumer forum.
Issue (i): Whether the proceeding before the Sessions Judge amounted to a second revision and was therefore not maintainable.
Analysis: The earlier proceeding before the Sessions Judge was in the nature of an appeal, not a revision. Since the revisionary bar against a second revision applies only where the earlier remedy was itself a revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, that bar was inapplicable on the facts.
Conclusion: The objection based on maintainability as a second revision was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be sustained in view of parallel proceedings before the consumer forum.
Analysis: The cheque amounts were also the subject matter of consumer forum proceedings, but those proceedings were pending when the criminal court passed sentence. Pending parallel proceedings did not justify a lenient sentence contrary to the statutory scheme under Section 138. The later consumer forum order could not be used to deny the complainant the relief flowing from the criminal conviction, and concerns about duplicated benefit could be addressed by the consumer forum itself.
Conclusion: The lenient sentence was held unsustainable and was enhanced to the extent contemplated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Conclusion: The conviction was left undisturbed, the challenge to maintainability failed, and the complainant obtained enhancement of the sentence and consequential monetary relief.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the existence of parallel consumer proceedings does not by itself justify a reduced sentence, and a proceeding before the Sessions Court is not a second revision when it is in substance an appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
