The court clarified that the power to enhance the sentence in revision is not affected by the fact that the revision petition was filed by a private person and not by the Government.

M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM. J.

( 1 ) - Both the Revisions and Criminal Original Petition are being disposed of by this

common order as the parties are the same and these arise out of a single trial.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in Cr1. RC. No. 627 of 1997 were convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in E. C. No. 6560 of 1995 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. As against the said conviction, the petitioners filed an appeal in C. A. No. 83 of 1997 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai. The said conviction was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this Revision.

( 3 ) THE petitioners in Cr1. RC. No. 625 of 1997 were convicted under Section 138 of the Act in C. C. No. 6560 of 1997 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate. George Town. Chennai and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- Having aggrieved over, the inadequacy of sentence, the complainant, the respondent herein filed a revision in Cr1. RC. No. 19 of 1997 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, enhanced the sentence of fine from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 1,44,000/ -. As against the order of enhancement, the petitioners have filed this revision.

( 4 ) THE complainant filed a petition in Cr1. O. P. No. 17795 of 1997 under Section 482 Cr. P. C. before this court praying to set aside the findings rendered in C. A. No. 83 of 1997 and Cr1. RC. No. 19 of 1997 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge, to the effect that out of the cheque amount of Rs. 2,12,000/ - Rs. 1,40,000/- was already paid and that there is only a balance of Rs. 72,000/ -.

( 5 ) THE facts are these:- The petitioners, on 30-5-1995 issued a cheque, for Rs. 2,12,000/- in favour of the respondent towards the discharge of arrears of hire charges. The said cheque presented on 26-8-1995 was returned on 28-8-1995 as there was no sufficient funds in the account of the petitioners in the Bank. On 1-9-1995, the respondent sent a statutory notice to the petitioners. In reply to the demand notice on 13-9-1995 the petitioners sent a notice stating that the petitioners were not liable to pay the cheque amount. In order to refute the contents of the reply notice dated 13-9-1995, the respondent again sent another notice on 30-9-1995 giving the details about the liability to be discharged by the petitioners. This was received by the petitioners. Thereupon again the petitioners sent a reply. Since the cheque amount was not paid by the petitioners despite demand within the statutory period, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 138 and 141 of the Act.

( 6 ) TO prove the case of prosecution on the side of the respondent, P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. P1 to 13 were filed.

( 7 ) THE plea of the defence is that already entire cheque amount was paid by the petitioners to the complainant even before the presentation of the said cheque in the Bank. In order to establish this factor Exs. D 1 and D2 were marked.

( 8 ) ON conclusion of trial, the petitioners were found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/ -. It was further directed that out of the said sum of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 28,000/-is to be paid to the complainant, the respondent herein as compensation.

( 9 ) THE lower appellate court though found the petitioners guilty, concluded on the strength of Exs. Dl and D2 that out of the cheque amount of Rs. 2,12. 000/ -. Rs: 1,40,000/- was already paid and that therefore the petitioners are liable to pay only the balance amount of Rs. 72,000/ -On the basis of this conclusion the lower appellate Court allowed the revision for enhancement of sentence filed by the complainant, by enhancing the fine from