The court emphasized that in cheque dishonor cases, the compensatory aspect should prevail, rejecting unjustified reductions in fines established by trial courts, thereby affirming the trial court's authority to impose substantial fines and compensation.

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.968/2014 by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore where under judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.25343/2010 by XX ACMM, Bangalore has been affirmed and sentence has been reduced from Rs.7,10,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/-.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel respondent remained absent.

3. The case of the petitioner/complainant before the trial Court was that the complainant is the proprietor of reputed firm dealing in manufacture of Station Battery Charge, L.V & M.V. Control Panels, required in the field of generation and distribution of electric power. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are Directors of Accused No.1 – firm and they have placed orders on behalf of Accused No.1 – firm for the purpose of purchase of Station Battery Charger, LTAC Panels and DEDBs as per KPTCL specifications for the projects at Haradanahalli and Bheriya Sub Stations under two purchase orders both dated 09.01.2007 directing the complainant to deliver the goods. The complainant has supplied the goods as per invoice No.039 dated 03.08.2009 and the accused was totally due of Rs.5,68,194/- towards the payment. Hence, the accused firm has issued two cheques bearing No.550385 dated 25.08.2009 for Rs.3,88,017/- and another cheque bearing No.550387 dated 10.08.2009 for Rs.79,151/- drawn on SBI Rajajinagar Industrial Estate, Bangalore. When the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment they have been dishonoured for the reason “Not Arranged for.” The complainant got issued legal notice and inspite of service of legal notice, accused persons failed to pay cheque amount within 15 days. Therefore, the complainant initiated proceedings against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act .

4. The Proprietor of the complainant has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. The statement of accused persons has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C . Accused No.2 has been examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D18. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides and appreciating the evidence on record has convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced to a pay a fine of Rs.7,10,000/- and in default, Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The trial Court has directed payment of compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant out of the fine amount and Rs.10,000/- to be defrayed to the State for the expenses incurred in the prosecution. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged by the accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.968/2014. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 30.04.2016 has affirmed the conviction of accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act , but has reduced the fine amount from Rs.7,10,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/- and ordered payment of compensation of Rs.4,67,200/- out of the fine amount to the complainant and remaining amount to be defrayed to the State. Aggrieved by the said reduction in fine/compensation, the complainant has preferred this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the transaction between the petitioner/complainant and respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 is a commercial transaction and considering the same the trial Court has awarded fine and compensation taking into calculation of interest on the cheque amount. He further submits that there was no prayer of the accused persons before the appellate Court for reduction of fine amount. The appellate Court has not assigned proper reasons for reduction of fine/compensation. She has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i)R.Vijayan vs. Baby and another ( AIR 2012 SC 528 ) (ii)Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan v. Yousu and another (2007 Crl.L.J.2590) (iii) Decision of