The death of an accused in a criminal revision case abates the sentence of imprisonment but does not affect the enforcement of ordered compensation, highlighting the distinct treatments of punishment and financial liability under criminal law.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, vide judgment, dated 29.02.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2005 confirming the judgment of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad in C.C.No.2244 of 2005, dated 10.11.2005, wherein the revision petitioner/accused was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I. Act, 1881’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant.

2. Heard Mr. V.S.M. Pritham Kanumuri, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the complainant/respondent No.2 has lent an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the revision petitioner/accused on 18.07.2002 in the presence of a mediator i.e., DW2 for which the revision petitioner has executed a receipt on Rs.10/- non-judicial stamp paper and the revision petitioner has issued two post dated cheques bearing No.284795, dated 03.08.2002 and No.284796, dated 15.08.2002, for an amount of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The complainant presented the said cheques to his Banker on 05.10.2002 and the same were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Owing to dishonour of the said cheques, a statutory notice dated 21.10.2002 under Section 138 (b) of the N.I. Act, 1881 was sent by the complainant to the accused and having received the notice, the accused did not make any arrangement for honour of the cheques. The complainant has approached the trial Court and the trial Court vide judgment, dated 10.11.2005, in C.C.No.2244 of 2005, has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and imposed the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2005 and the Appellate Court vide judgment, dated 29.02.2008, has dismissed the appeal. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case.

4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that the trial Court has over looked the fact that the complainant failed to fulfil the requirement(s) of statutory requirement of sending notice within 15 days under Section 138 (b) of the N.I. Act, 1881 which was not adhered. It is further contended that the date of dishonour of said cheques being 05.10.2002, notice was sent on 21.10.2002 and no offence has been made out by the accused and case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that the Appellate Court failed to consider the objections with regard to the notice and over looked the facts pleaded. Lastly, it is urged that accused is an ex-defence employee and that Courts should not entertain matters against defence employees.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1-State submitted that Appellate Court considered the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and the Appellate Court was justified in upholding the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and payment of compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant. It is further contended that notice was sent by the complainant within the stipulated period of 15 days and the ground of not sending notice within 15 days as raised by the accused is not correct. It is