Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Rajesh Gulati – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-
(ii) Judgment and order dated 10.01.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2022, Rajesh Gulati Vs. State and another, by the court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and the order passed in the case has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Instant revision has been admitted to the extent of examining the correctness of sentence. Notices were issued on respondent no.2, the complainant, but he is not represented. Service is sufficient on
The court affirmed that under Section 138, sentencing discretion allows for adjustments based on the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to prove a defense by preponderance of probabilities.
The court has the discretion to alter the sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act based on the circumstances and payment made by the accused.
A conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be upheld if supported by sufficient evidence, and sentences can be modified based on the financial circumstances of the accused.
The court holds that modifications to sentences are permissible under the circumstances to ensure justice, particularly regarding compensation for victims.
A conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be upheld if statutory notice requirements are fulfilled, but default imprisonment cannot be imposed for compensation.
The court upheld conviction for cheque dishonor under the Negotiable Instruments Act, allowing time to remit the fine.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but modified the excessive sentence to time already served, emphasizing limitations on revisional jurisdiction.
The court interpreted that under Section 138, the accused's liability can be satisfied through a fine, and the sentence may be modified while granting time for payment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
