IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant in a case can file revision against inadequacy of sentence imposed by trial court.

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 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 Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Negotiable Instruments 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, Ist 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 due 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 due 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 had 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 Negotiable Instruments 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 re-appreciation of the evidence and the materials placed on record the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. In the meantime the respondent-complainant 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 months 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 jurisdictio