H. PUKHRAJ Vs. D. PARASMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The Appellant is the complainant. The Respondent is the accused. For the disposal of this case, it is not necessary to give details of the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that a cheque in the sum of Rs. 6,19,488/- (Rupees six lakh nineteen thousand four hundred and eighty eight only) was issued by the Respondent to the Appellant. The cheque is dated 11/04/2003. When it was presented for encashment on the same day, it bounced. The Appellant filed complaint on 27/05/2003. The trial was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore. Learned Magistrate by order dated 05/09/2005 convicted the Respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("the NI Act") and sentenced him to undergo six months imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default, to undergo three months further imprisonment. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the Respondent preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Coimbatore. The learned Additional District Judge confirmed the conviction. However, the Additional District Judge modified the order of sentence. He reduced the sentence to three weeks. Being aggrieved by that, the Appellant approached the High Court making grievance about the inadequacy of the sentence. The High Court, by the impugned order confirmed the conviction. It, however, modified the order of sentence. The High Court directed the Respondent either to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) to the Appellant or to undergo imprisonment for two months. The operative part of the order could be quoted:

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant at some length. Though notice is served on the Respondent, he is not appearing either in person or through a lawyer. This Court, therefore, appointed Mrs. Nanita Sharma as amicus curiae. We have heard learned amicus curiae also.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant severally assailed the impugned judgment. He submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the Appellant may be adequately punished and substantial compensation amount may be directed to be paid to the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Appellant urged that this Court should ask the Respondent to pay double the cheque amount to the Appellant. Learned amicus curiae, on the other hand, submitted that no interference is necessary with the impugned order.