2022 (2) TMI 885

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') but modified the sentence by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and also modified the fine amount to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) instead of Rs. 11,46,188/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs forty six thousand one hundred eighty eight only) imposed by trial Court i.e., by the XXVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru city in C.C. No. 4955/2013, dated 15.11.2014. 3. Revision petitioner was the complainant and respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial Court. The parties will be referred to as per their respective ranks before the trial Court, for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Progressive Health Care, got examined himself as D.W.-1, but has not produced any documents on his behalf. 6. The learned trial Court Magistrate, after hearing the arguments, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and passed an order of sentence that the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 11,46,188/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs forty six thousand one hundred eighty eight only) out of that Rs. 11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven lakhs only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount of Rs. 46,188/- (Rupees Forty six thousand one hundred eighty eight only) is ordered to be remitted to the State. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the accused p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2015 in case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs. Vijay D. Savli in support of his case and prays to modify the order. 10. I have perused the revision petition contents and also the Judgment of Sessions Court and trial Court. I have perused the records of the case and also the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. From the above materials, the point that arise for my consideration is: "Whether the impugned order passed by both courts are correct, legal and in conformity with the settled principle regarding appreciation of evidence in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which are popularly called as cheque bounce ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evision petitioner. In that case, the appellant had booked a flat at Khargar Project proposed to be developed by M/s. Salvi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and he has paid through accused the amount but that project did not materialise and only after much persuasion, the cheque given in that circumstance and considering the earlier decision of R. Vijayan Vs. Baby, reported in AIR 2005, imposed the said sentence and it is held that the directions to pay the compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss of cheque should be practical and realistic which would mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a reasonable rate. 14. So, this proposition cannot be disputed at all. The Court has to keep in mind the fac....