TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lk powder and other products. Respondent No. 1- Gopal Sharma is the director of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 agreed to sale 50 Metric Tones Milk Powder to the applicant and for that applicant paid amount of Rs. 80 Lakhs in advance, but respondent Nos. 1 and 2 neither supplied the milk powder nor returned the money. When applicant pressurized the respondents for returning the money, then respondent No. 1 on behalf of respondent No. 2 provided 4 cheques, each cheque amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs. When applicant presented cheques bearing No. 175311 and 175312 to his Bank, both cheques returned uncashed with an endorsement that no sufficient amount found in the account of the respondents, then again applicant submitted another two cheques bearing No. 175313 and 175314, both cheques returned uncashed with an endorsement that the payment of the cheques have been stopped by the respondents. Thereafter, the applicant contacted the respondents, they have assured that on presenting the cheques again, all cheques would be encashed. When applicant again presented the all cheques, but all cheques returned uncashed and dishonored by the Bank, then applicant served a notice to the respondents o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court summarily because respondents No. 1 and 2 fails to deposit the amount as directed by this Court hence there was no adjudication on this revision on merits. Respondents No. 1 and 2 may be permitted to agitate the conviction and sentence passed against them by both Courts below and prays to recall the order dated 07.08.2018 whereby both parties are directed to submit final arguments. 7. Learned counsel appeared for the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 638/2017 submits that the Criminal Revision No.624/2017 has been dismissed by this Court on the direction of Supreme Court now there is no need to restore again and provide opportunity to the respondents to agitate that conviction and sentence. 8. After hearing both parties perused the whole previous orders passed by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1982/2017 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 8676/2017). 9. Both respondents being aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2017 of depositing the amount passed by this Court preferred criminal appeal before the Supreme Court, registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1982/2017 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 8676/2017). Order of the Supreme Court is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, first question pertains to the modification in the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 16% per annum is concerned, learned trial Court calculated compensation @ 9% per annum. Learned counsel appeared for the applicant submits that it should be enhanced @ 16% per annum. This Court is not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant because at the time of transaction, the Bank interest on the commercial transaction was not @ 16% per annum, therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in calculating the interest on the cheques amount @ 9% per annum. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity or incorrectness in the order of the trial Court while calculating the compensation imposed rate of interest @ 9% per annum, therefore, the prayer of the applicant to enhance the rate of interest @ 9% per annum to 16% per annum is not acceptable. 13. So far as, reduction of sentence of imprisonment from 1 year to till rising of the Court is concerned, this Court is of the view that learned Appellate Court has not considered the point how he is modifying and reducing the imprisonment of respondent and imposed fine of Rs. 40,000/-. The Hon'ble....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loss. Sentence in default can also be imposed. The object of the provision is not merely penal but to make the accused honour the negotiable instruments." (Emphasis Supplied) 14. While considering the object and conduct of the respondents, this Court finds that respondents No. 1 and 2 in spite of the orders of the learned trial Court, Appellate Court as well as by this Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have not paid the cheques amount and flouted the order by putting the technical procedure hurdles and not obeying the order. This conduct shows that the respondents issued the cheques merely as device to fraud the complainant and this dishonored of the cheques caused incredible loss, injuries and inconvenience to the complainant and also reflected the credibility of the business transaction. 15. Considering these facts, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court without assigning any reason reduced the sentence of imprisonment into the lowest one till rising of the Court, which does not seem to be warranted in this situation. Learned Appellate Court while reducing the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court imposed fine of Rs. 40000/- ....