NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. Vs. RAJNIGANDHA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge to the impugned order of 16th February, 2008 is on the ground of inadequacy of sentence imposed upon respondents-accused. In the impugned order, the sentence of fine imposed upon respondent No.1 is of '2.50 crores and upon realisation of fine, '2.30 crores is awarded to petitioner- complainant and respondent No.2 has been sentenced to six months imprisonment with fine of '4.50 crores and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and third respondent has been sentenced to fine of Rs. 5,000/- only.

(2.) At the hearing, it was urged by petitioner's counsel that the purpose of incorporating Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is to put a check and restriction on a person issuing cheques without intention to honour them and it was submitted that undue leniency has been shown to respondent-accused and adequate sentence ought to be imposed, as respondent-accused are not paying the compensation amount despite passing of the impugned order and suffering a decree for '2.25 cores, in respect of which execution proceedings are pending. It was pointed out that respondent No.3- accused had admitted before the Revisional Court that she was not a mother of a minor child but still her sentence of nominal fine of Rs. 5,000/- only is maintained and there is nothing on record to show that she was suffering from any ailment. Reliance was placed upon Apex Court decision in State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, 2011 7 SCC 639 to contend that respondent No.3 had misled the trial court to escape the rigors of substantive sentence and so, she ought to be suitably punished. Reliance was also placed upon decision in Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan, 2002 2 SCC 420 to stress that a flea-bite sentence ought not to be imposed for the offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thus, awarding of adequate sentence is sought in this petition.

(3.) Though respondents have been duly served but at the final hearing, counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 only had appeared who opposed this petition on the preliminary objection of it being not maintainable, as this petition is said to be second revision petition in the garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. To assert so, reliance is placed upon decisions in Vijay Kumar Vs. Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, 2003 156 ELT 827; Laxmi Bail Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel, 2002 3 JT 409. To highlight what should be the adequate sentence, reference was made by contesting respondents' counsel to decisions in K.A. Abbas H.S.A. Vs. Sabu Joseph, 2010 6 SCC 230; D. Purshotama Reddy & Anr. Vs. K. Sateesh, 2008 AIR(SC) 3202 Sivasuriyan Vs. Thangelu, 2004 13 SCC 795; Anil Kumar Goel Vs. Kishan Chand Kaura, 2008 AIR(SC) 899 & Kaushalya Devi Massand Vs. Roopkishore Khore, 2011 3 SCR 879. According to learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3, this petition is not maintainable and in any case, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.