ASHOK KUMAR KHANDELWAL Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR MANEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein was tried for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "Act, 1881") on the charge that he issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- on 18-4-2001 in discharge of his liability and on presentation the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank holding that there is insufficient fund in the account of the applicant, this led to serving of the notice and non-payment thereof, complainant filed complaint before the Jurisdictional Criminal Court against the present applicant. The Jurisdictional Criminal Court, after full-fledged trial and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found the applicant guilty for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 3,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. Against which, appeal filed by the accused/applicant remained unsuccessful before the Court of Session leading to filing of this revision before this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant would vehemently contend that conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate as well as Court of Session for alleged commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 is absolutely illegal and bad in law. Alternatively, he would submit that the sentence awarded is excessive and sentence deserves to be reduced as the applicant has already suffered jail sentence of two days. He would further submit that since the dispute is of Rs. 50,000/-, and applicant is ready and willing to compensate the complainant by paying Rs. 1,00,000/- (just double amount of the cheque in question) as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Amiayakant Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate as affirmed by the Appellate Court is well-merited and the sentence awarded to the applicant is also just and proper, which does not call for any interference.