THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.490 of 2009

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 07.07.2008 in Crl.A.No.70 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’) confirming the conviction dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court’), in C.C. No.874 of 2000.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2007, the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, and to pay a fine of Rs.90,000/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.83,000/- was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Appellate Court on 07.07.2008.

3. None appeared in this case. An amicus curiae was appointed and she submitted the synopsis.

4. The case before the trial Court under was Section 138 of NI Act vide C.C.No.874 of 2000 and the trial Court has convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, and to pay a fine of Rs.90,000/-. Out of the said amount , a sum of Rs.83,000/- was directed to paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Against the said judgment accused preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.70 of 2007, and the same was dismissed on 07.07.2008 by confirming the judgement of the trial Court.

5. The present criminal revision case is filed by de-facto complainant praying for enhancing the sentence. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the accused being the bank clerk has committed dishonour of cheque, which affects the credibility of financial transaction, which is detrimental to the public interest. Hence, he was liable to be punished severely but the trial Court has taken a lenient view. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the compensation awarded is insufficient to recover the loss suffered by the complainant. He further relied upon judgment of Apex Court in Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P, (2016) 9 SCC 541

6. The Cheque was issued for Rs.83,400/- in the year 1998 and the cheques were dishonoured on 17.06.1998. Thus, the complaint was lodged under Section 138 of the NI Act after issuance of notice and it is registered vide C.C.No.874 of 2000. Thus, the litigation began in the year 1998 and the trial Court judgement delivered in 2007 and the Appellant Court has delivered its decision in the year 2008. Against which, the present revision is preferred in the year 2009. The revision petitioner has waited till the appeal was decided then came up with the present revision with the grievance that there is inadequacy of sentence and payment of compensation granted by the trial Court. It is a long drawn litigation based on dishonour of cheques for Rs.83,400/-. The trial Court imposed the compensation of Rs.90,000/- out of which, the cheque amount was ordered to be paid to the de-facto complainant and further

one month imprisonment is also imposed. Therefore, the same was confirmed by the Appellant Court. The only grounds raised by the revision petitioner is that accused being a bank employee cannot commit such a fraud and hence he has to be severely punished and another ground is that he could not recoup the loss suffered by him. Both grounds are untenable as the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellant Court are based on sound reasoning and do not need any interference by this Court. Therefore, the criminal revision case lacks merits and hence, is liable to be dismisse