The obligation to impose appropriate sentences and the need for courts to apply their minds while imposing sentences.

JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Inspite of service of Revisional application and forwarding letter, none appeared for the opposite parties.

2. The present application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been directed against the judgment dated 6th September, 2018 passed in criminal appeal no. 45 of 2014 heard analogously with criminal appeal no. 60 of 2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Howrah arising out of the judgment and order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Howrah in complaint case no. 1182-C of 2006.

3. Learned trial court after contested hearing convicted the accused person/Respondent no. 2 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment of three months and also directed to pay compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounting to Rs. 3,25,000/- to the complainant, Arun Kumar Chattopadhyay and acquitted respondent no. 1 Smt. Rupa Karpas. But said order of sentence was revised by the appellate court by his impugned judgment dated 6th September, 2018 to the extent that the Appellant/ accused no. 2 to suffer sentence of simple imprisonment till rising of the court and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,92, 447/- only as compensation to the complainant as per Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra strenuously argued that no reason has been assigned by the learned appellate court for remission of sentence though he did not interfere with the finding of the trial court who has convicted the respondent no. 2 and acquitted respondent no. 1. Moreover, he contended that in view of the Apex Court judgment passed in Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs. Vijay D. Salvi (Criminal Appeal No. 1472/2009) it is incumbent upon the accused convict to pay 9% per annum interest on the compensation amount to the complainant which has also been overlooked by both the courts below.

5. Both the courts below have convicted the respondent no. 2. The point for challenge herein is about remission of sentence as made by the first appellate court. The trial court after declaring the respondent as convict passed a sentence to suffer simple imprisonment of three months and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- which was converted by the appellate court, to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the court but he increased the compensation amount from Rs. 3,25,000/- to Rs. 5,92,447/-.

6. On perusal of the sentencing part of the judgment, it appears that practically no reason has been assigned by the Appellate Court for aforesaid remission though the appellate court is of the view that the Trial Court judgment is reasoned and well written. The relevant portion of the judgment needs to be quoted in the present context:

“The impugned judgment is a reasoned and well-written one. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the portion relating to sentence needs to be modified. The Learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the accused no. 2 for committing offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The learned Magistrate was also right in acquitting the accused no. 1. However, the term of sentence imposed upon the accused no. 2 appear to me to be excessive. I am of the opinion that in cases involving offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act justice can be served better if the complaint is provided with more pecuniary relief than sentencing the accused persons to imprisonment.”

7. Appellate Court specifically observed that the learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the accused no. 2 for committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he has also rightly acquitted accused no. 1 as she is not the drawer of the cheque but he observed that the term of sentence imposed upon the accused appears to be excessive. He has not explained why it appears to be excessive to the appellate court because the maximum sentence of imprisonment that