JUDGMENT

M G Giratkar, J. - On last date i.e. 08th February, 2019, following order was passed :-

"Shri R.B. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the applicant and Shri B.M. Lonare, learned APP appears on behalf of respondent No.2.

None appeared on behalf of non-applicant No.1 on 27.11.2018. Therefore, bailable warrant was issued against non-applicant No.1. The same is duly served, but non-applicant No.1 or his Counsel was not present on 11.12.2018.

Today also, none appears on behalf of nonapplicant No.1.

Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the applicant is present and he is ready to argue the matter.

Present Revision Application pertains to year 2013. Put up this revision for final hearing on 14th February, 2019. On that day, the matter will be heard and decided finally even in the absence of non-applicant No.1 or his Counsel."

2. Today also, none appears on behalf of respondent No.1. As per order dated 08th February, 2019, today, revision is fixed for final hearing even in the absence of learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

3. Heard Shri R.B. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. He has pointed out the judgment of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur thereby convicting respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as accused) and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.7,02,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for six months. The appeal was filed by the accused before Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2011, partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence to the extent that instead of fine of Rs.7,02,000/-, he is directed to pay fine of Rs.5,02,000/-.

4. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no bar for the trial Court/JMFC to grant fine without recording any reasons. Whenever there is a minimum punishment, then specific reason is to be recorded by the Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly recorded the findings that the trial Court not recorded its findings for imposing fine of Rs.7,02,000/-. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2011 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. There is no dispute that the accused issued cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant. It was bounced. Therefore, complaint case was filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned trial Court has held that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused is proved. Therefore, he has convicted the accused for the said offence and directed him to pay fine of Rs.7,02,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.7,00,000/- were to be paid to the complainant towards compensation and remaining amount of Rs.2000/- be deposited as a fine.

6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the fine amount to Rs. 5,02,000/- from Rs. 7,02,000/-. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while reducing the fine amount, recorded the findings that specific reason is not given by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

7. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that learned Additional CJM/trial Court was not required to give such reason because it was not a minimum punishment. Whenever there is a minimum punishment then the trial Court has to record specific reasons as to why he is imposing less punishment than the punishment provided for the specific offence. But, there is no reason for the Magistrate/trial Court to record any reason when there is no minimum punishment or findings.

8. In the present case, the applicant/complainant is contesting his case from the year 2009. Learned Counsel for the applicant has made a statement that not a single pie is paid by the accused till date. In fact, as per the default clause in the judgment of trial Court, he has to undergo jail sentence. It is surprising to note that how he is not in jail.

9. Learned