2021 (3) TMI 593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of six months and out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant, which was confirmed by the order dated 21.02.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.392/2013 passed by the LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Revision Petition are as under: A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Cr.PC., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that the complainant had advanced a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused as hand loan and towards repayment, a cheque was issued by the accused which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atter of this Revision Petition. 7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner Sri Suresh D.Deshpande, vehemently contended that both the courts have not appreciated the materials on record in proper perspective and passed an order of conviction which is not sustainable in law and sought for allowing the Revision Petition. He further contended that the cheque was actually issued in favour of the co-brother of the complainant who is examined as DW-2 in respect of a monetary transaction between DW-2 and the accused and in that connection a cheque was issued to DW-2 which has been misused by the complainant and a false complaint came to be alleged against the accused which has not been properly appreciated by both the courts and thus sou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther the sentence is excessive? My answer to the above points are in the Negative for the following reasons: 10. In the case on hand, Ex.P-1 cheque and the signature found therein is not in dispute. So also, the dishonor of cheque and issuance of statutory legal notice is also not in dispute. Perusal of cross examination of PWs.1 & 2 depicts that the accused has taken a defence that he had a monetory transaction with DW-2 and in that regard he had issued Ex.P-1 cheque to DW-2, who is none other than the co-brother of the complainant and Ex.P1 has been mis-used by the complainant to foist a false case against the accused herein. To probabalise such a defence, the accused did take the responsibility of not only examining himself as DW-1 but....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on hand and the defence having not been probabalised, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate in holding that the accused has committed an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which has been confirmed by the first Appellate Court. 13. However, the learned Magistrate has sentenced the accused by ordering fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- and out of which Rs. 2,25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the accused. 14. In the considered opinion of this court, ordering Rs. 25,000/- fine towards the State is excessive as no State missionary is involved in the case on hand. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that ordering a sum of Rs. 2....