MANSUKHBHAI HARJIBHAI PATEL Vs. HARSUKHBHAI BAVANJIBHAI DHIGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No.1 herein (orig. accused) was tried by the learned J.M.F.C. Kutiyana, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in Criminal Case No. 411/1999. At the end of the trial, the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the accused of the offences under sections 406 & 420 of IPC, however, convicted the accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to suffer S.I for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ , in default S.I for one month.

(2.) THE accused challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Kutiyana by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 2/2005 before the Sessions Court, Porbandar. The learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar by his judgment and order dated 31.12.2007 was pleased to modify the order of sentence whereby the Court was pleased to impose fine of Rs. 25,000/ in place of Rs. 5000/ and sentence of imprisonment was substituted by sentencing the accused till rising of the Court. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate Court, the original complainant has filed the present revision application.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. R.C.Kakkad for the applicant submitted that the short point on which the present revision application is filed is inadequacy of fine imposed by the appellate Court. It was submitted that in the circumstances of the case, fine of higher amount ought to have been imposed and the applicantcomplainant ought to have been awarded the same as compensation. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on Dilip S.Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd, (2007)6 SCC 528.