M. Seetharama Murti, J.

This is a criminal revision case under sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.PC' for short) by the petitioner/complainant assailing the inadequacy of sentence imposed on the 1st respondent/sole accused by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Special Mobile Court holding Full Additional Charge of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise, Guntur in C.C.No.166 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The facts relevant, in brief, are as follows: -

The complainant/petitioner had filed a private complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ('the Act' for brevity). The accused had contested the said case. During the course of trial, the complainant and his supporting witness were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and the accused was examined as DW1. Exhibits P1 to P6 and D1 and D2 were exhibited. On merits, the trial court had found the accused guilty of the aforementioned offence and had convicted him under Section 255 (2) of the Cr.PC. However, after hearing the accused on the measure of sentence, the trial court had sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of the said fine amount.'

3. Having been aggrieved of the quantum of sentence imposed against the accused, the complainant had preferred this revision case contending inter alia that the imposition of fine alone as sentence that too in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is grossly inadequate and is not commensurate to the gravity of the offence which was established against the accused.

4. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have perused the material record.

5. Now the points for determination are:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- alone coupled with in default simple imprisonment of three months imposed against the respondent/accused is inadequate for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act, And, if so, what shall be the appropriate order to be made in this revision case?

Points:

6-A Before adverting to the facts and merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention that the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/accused having submitted that the present revision case is not maintainable had forcefully contended that in case the complainant is unhappy on the premise that the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial Court is grossly inadequate, he ought to have preferred an appeal before a competent court. In support of the said submission, he had placed reliance on the following two decisions.

1. Chanda mala Chitemma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 961 (AP).

2. G. Basawaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 201 (AP).

In both the decisions, a reference was made to sections 372 and 378(4) of the Cr.PC. It is necessary to first refer to the said provisions which read as follows:

"372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:

[Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court]

378. Appeal in case of acquittal -

(1) xxxxx

(2) xxxxx

(3) xxxxx

(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court."

Coming to the decision