2002 (9) TMI 893

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court convicted the accused respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹ 20,000 only, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The cheque amount involved was ₹ 1,52,500. The trial court did not impose the sentence of fine proportionate to twice that of the cheque amount as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal before the sessions judge. 2. The sessions judge holds that in the first place, an appeal is not maintainable against the sentence in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prosecuted by way of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order of the consumer forum is pending in appeal. 5. It is not in dispute that the amounts involved in the disputed cheques are also the subject matter before the consumer forum. I find that the sessions judge was in a way correct in holding that an appeal would not lie on the question of inadequacy of sentence in respect of a private complaint. If appeal was not maintainable on the jurisdictional grounds, appeal should have been dismissed without adverting to the merits of the case. The proceedings before the sessions judge were in the nature of appeal; the present proceedings do not amount to a second revision. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court cited by counsel for the respondent has no application to the facts of the case. ....