IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque – Prayer for conversion of fine to compensation cannot be entertained where Petitioner has already adopted alternative procedure to recover amount.

JUDGMENT

Subhendu Samanta, J.—The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment of order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur in C.A.No.200 of 2012 wherein the learned Appellate Court has modified the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in C.C.No.77 of 2011.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the present petitioner being the complainant filed a proceeding under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (For brevity “the N.I.Act”). The respondent herein arrayed as accused. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties passed an order of Judgment and sentence, thereby, the learned Trial Court found the respondent to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for two months. The accused challenged the said order of conviction and sentence before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate court after hearing the parties has confirmed the Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court but modified the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year to the fine of Rs.20,000/- in total

3. Being aggrieved by the dissatisfaction of the said observation of the learned Appellate Court, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court has acted erroneously in passing the impugned judgment and converting the order of conviction into fine. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court should have converted the order of conviction to the order of compensation in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court should have considered that a huge cheque amount was in question in the said proceeding under section 138 of the N.I.Act. He further submits that the order of Judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is erroneous and the same is hereby set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that there is no illegality and impropriety in the impugned order. He further submits that actually the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal and only converted the order of sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to fine. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has provided reasons why the order of conviction was converted to pay of fine. Thus, there is no illegality in impugned order this court has no opinion to decide.

6. Heard the learned counsel for th petitioner. Perused the entire facts and circumstances along with the observations of the learned Trial Court along with learned Appellate Court. It appears that the learned Trial Court found the respondent No.1 being accused to be guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The said observation was confirmed in the appeal. However, the learned Appellate Court has converted the order of sentence to fine. It is specifically submits by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Appellate Court should have converted the conviction to compensation. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, for the first time, has placed before the Court. When learned Trial Court passed order of sentence by directing the accused/respondent to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment that was not sought to be challenged by the petitioner regarding payment of compensation. The petitioner had to challenge the order to convert the conviction to an amount of compensation that may be be double to the cheque amount.

7. But in this case, the learned Appellate Court has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2566 (Koushalya Devi Massand V/s Roopkishore) and is of the opinion that the order of conviction in a case under section 138 of N.I.Act is not desirable. It appears that the learned Appellate Court has followed the decision