HARSHVARDHAN SARANGAPANI Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice sent to the appellant has been received back unserved. Earlier, the notice issued to him through counsel was also received back with an endorsement that he was no more the counsel for the appellant.

(2.) In a complaint filed by the respondent Kotak Mahindra Private Limited under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant before this Court was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, on his pleading guilty to the charge. Being aggrieved from the said order, the respondent Kotak Mahindra filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 13/2010. Vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs 1,000/-. He was also directed to pay Rs 25,000/- as compensation to the respondent or to undergo SI for two months in default. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment dated 31.05.2010, this appeal has been preferred by him.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge took note of the fact that no compensation had been awarded to the appellant before him. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas vs. Sabu Jopseph, Criminal Appeal No. 1052/2010, decided on 11.05.2010, whereby the Apex Court recommended to the Trial Courts that besides convicting the accused in check bounce cases, compensation to the complainant should also be awarded so as to meet the ends of justice and noticing that the sentence imposed upon by the Metropolitan Magistrate was very minimal, directed compensation amounting to Rs 25,000/-