INDRESHWAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

(2.) This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 1.7.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2005 Indreshwar Vs. State of Uttaranchal whereby the appeal of the revisionist against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20.7.2005 passed in Com-plaint Case No. 344 of 2004 has been dismissed. The accused/revisionist was convicted and sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,05,000/-.

(3.) The principal contention of the revisionist before this Court is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction inasmuch as un-der Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (from hereinafter re-ferred to as the "Act"), the powers before the Magistrate is to impose a sen-tence not exceeding imprisonment for one year and an amount of fine not ex-ceeding Rs. 5,000/-. This argument of the accused/revisionist is totally miscon-ceived inasmuch as the penal provision is given in Section 138 of the Act itself whereby in a offence under Section 138 of the Act a maximum punishment which has been prescribed is an imprisonment of a term which may extend to two years and the fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque. Admittedly, the cheque which was drawn in favour of the complainant was of Rs. 2,95,000/-. Both the trial court as well as the revisional court have exam-ined the matter in detail and have come to the conclusion that the offence under Section 138 of the Act has been committed by the accused/revisionist. Regarding the quantum of sentence and the jurisdiction, the argument of the revisionist is totally misconceived inasmuch as Section 143 refers to the pow-ers of the Court only when the case has proceeded summarily. Section 143 of the Act on which reliance has been placed by the accused/revisionist reads as under :-