IMPORTANT POINT
It is not mandatory that in every case for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, double the cheque amount shall be imposed as fine.

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—The petitioner/complainant is before this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the order dated 18.1.2005 made in C.C. No.30676 of 2002 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bangalore, and the order dated 22.8.2005 made in Criminal Revision Petition No.232 of 2005 on the file of Fast Track Court No. V at Bangalore City, insofar as not imposing double the cheque amount as fine for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Heard arguments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused had approached the complainant and requested him to invest a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 in L.P.G. business assuring that the complainant would be accommodated as a partner along with the accused. Thereafter, from time to time the complainant paid in all a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to the accused. The accused started business in gas agency on 17.10.2001. Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused and requested him to make partnership deed, but the accused postponed the same on one reason or the other and finally denied complainant’s share or partnership in the business. Thereafter, the complainant, insisted repayment of the amount and in pursuance of that a cheque dated 1.2.2002 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was issued. When that cheque was presented for realisation, it was dishonoured. Therefore, the petitioner-complainant filed a private complaint as against the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘the Act’). The respondent accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 6,00,000 in default in payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Out of the fine amount, complainant, was awarded Rs. 5,80,000 as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate in not imposing double the cheque amount as fine and inadequate compensation, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.232 of 2005. The Sessions Court, after hearing arguments, partly allowed the revision petition and modified the order of sentence of the Trial Court and enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 7,00,000 and out of the fine amount, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,85,000 was awarded to the complainant. It is submitted that the first appellate Court erred in not imposing double the cheque amount as fine and awarding reasonable compensation. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for enhancement of fine and enhanced compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision in Smt. Bhavani v. D.C. Doddarangaiah and Another1 and prays for imposing double the cheque amount, viz., Rs. 10,00,000 as fine.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent-accused has not challenged the impugned order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

6. In the above said Smt. Bhavani’s case, learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant and modified the sentence and enhanced the fine amount, from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 (viz., double the cheque amount) and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,95,000 out of the fine amount.

7. It must be mentioned that the decision rendered in Smt. Bhavani’s case cannot be applied in all the cases and impose double the cheque amount as fine. Keeping in view that the respondent complainant had issued cheque dated 1.2.2002 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 the first appellate Court has considerably enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 7,00,000 and awarded compensation of Rs. 6,85,000 to the complainant. According to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year or with fine, which