PRAHLADBHAI SANKALCHAND PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant - original accused No. 1, has filed this Revision Application, challenging the Judgment and order dated 30.6.2009 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instrument Act), Court No. 4, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case (New) No. 979 of 2008 (old Criminal Case No. 707 of 2002), whereby the learned Magistrate has held the applicant (original accused) guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Insrument Act and awarded him simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i/d to further undergo SI for 4 months. Against the said Judgment and order of learned Magistrate, the applicant herein has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 163, of 2009 before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide Judgment and order dated 3.3.2010, not only, dismissed the said Criminal Appeal, but, enhanced the sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 years, instead of simple imprisonment for 1 year, as awarded by the learned Magistrate and the order of fine of Rs. 5,000/- passed by the learned Magistrate, is also modified and enhanced to the total penalty of Rs. 1,05,000/- and upon depositing the said amount by the applicant - accused, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded to the complainant.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said Judgments and orders of both the Court below, the applicant herein has preferred this Revision Application.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that for the business purpose the applicant accused was in need of money and, therefore, being the friend of applicant - accused, the accused has borrowed the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant with running interest @ 18 per cent. The accused has also gave the promissory note, signed by the original accused. The applicant has also issued the cheques in favour of the complainant. It is alleged that when the said cheques were deposited before the Bank, the same were returned with an endorsement "insufficient balance". Thereafter, the complainant issued Notice to the applicant accused, but, the applicant did not return the amount to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has filed complaint before the Court. Thereafter, after considering the evidence produced on the record and after considering the arguments, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad, held the applicant - accused guilty of the offence charged against him and awarded the sentence as stated herein above.