2004 (3) Crimes 562
Karnataka High Court
K. Ramanna, J.
Nagaraj—Petitioner
versus
Gowramma—Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 20 of 2002
Decided on 16-4-2004
Held: The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence and the materials placed on record came to the conclusion that the respondent has rightly filed a revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. for enhance-ment of sentence. Under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. equal powers are given both to the High Court; as well as Sessions Court to call for and examine the records of any proceeding pending before any inferior Criminal Court within its local jurisdiction for purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recor-ded or passed as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court. In the instant case the respondent herein has rightly preferred a revision petition before the I Additional Sessions Judge for inadequacy of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold water. (Para 8)
Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act the order of sentence was passed by the Trial Court awarding lesser sentence even though the amount covered under the cheque was Rs. 60,000/- but the Trial Court while sentencing this petitioner-accused awarded only a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the respondent has rightly filed a revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge. If the com-plainant proves the charges levelled against the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act the Magistrate may impose the sentence or the fine double the cheque amount. Therefore, it can be said that the Magistrate misread the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act while imposing the fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. the respondent has rightly filed a revision petition and the learned Sessions Judge has after appreciation of the materials placed on record enhanced the sentence of fine amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 65,000/-. (Para 9)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
K. Ramanna, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 25-6-1999 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 16399 of 1997 and order dated 26-9-2001 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Cri.R.P. No. 239 of 1999, whereby the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, convicted this petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I Act”) and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount he shall suffer S.I. for two months. Whereas, 1st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge allowed Cri. R.P. No. 239 of 1999 filed by the respondent for inadequate sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, assailing both the orders the petitioner has come up with this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction and exercised revisional jurisdiction provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which amounts to abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice. Further, it is alleged that, though the alleged cheque, as shown in the complaint is totally different from that of cheque mentioned in the complaint but the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration about the defence of this revision petitioner- accused. On this ground alone instead of dismissing the revision petition the learned Sessions Judge allowed it and enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 65,000/- which is illegal, abuse of process of law
and miscarriage of justice. Hence, this petition.
2. The brief facts leading to this case are that the revision petitioner herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the respondent on 6-2-1996 and executed consideration receipt agreeing to repay the same with interest within 10 months. On demand he issued a cheque dated, 5-10-1996 for Rs. 60,000/-. Since the petitioner failed to pay the said amount, the respondent presented the said cheque to his Bank but it was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Therefore, the demand notice has been issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount. Even then the petitioner failed to pay the amount. Therefore, he filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After recording the sworn statement of the respondent, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and issued the process. After appearance of this revision petitioner-accused a charge was framed, thereafter the respondent examined herself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents Exs. P. 1 to P. 5 and closed her case. But, the petitioner herein did not choose to adduce any evidence to prove his contention/defence, therefore after considering the materials placed on record the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate convicted and sentence this revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order he preferred Cri. A. No. 206 of 1999 After reappreciation of the evidence and the materials placed on record the learned I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. In the meantime the respondent-com-plainant had filed Cri. R. P No. 239 of 1999 for inadequate sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate on the accused who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, after considering the materials placed on record enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 65,000/-, in case of default of payment of fine, the sentence was also enhanced to undergo simple imprisonment from two montfis to 6 months.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondent.
5. During the course of the arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even though there is no jurisdiction to e
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.