K CHINNASAMY Vs. R PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner in all these five cases is one and the same. THE respondents are different. In all these five cases, the petitioner/accused was convicted by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in each case.

(2.) MR.V.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in all these five cases submitted that the petitioner was not challenging his conviction at present and he was confining his argument only to the question of sentence. A memo also had been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to that effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the cheque amount involved in Crl.R.C.Nos.1410 and 1411 of 2001 is Rs.1,00,000/- in each case; the cheque amount involved in Crl.R.C.Nos.1412 and 1413 of 2001 is Rs.1,50,000/- in each case and the cheque amount involved in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2001 is Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was running several business but due to heavy loss in the business, he could not repay the amount due to others. The petitioner is also facing a case under TNPID Act before the Special Court under TNPID Act at Coimbatore in C.C.No.1 of 2009. His properties have already been attached by the Government under the said Act and the properties of the petitioner were already sold and the sale amount had been distributed to the depositors by the competent Authority. As on date, the petitioner is employed in a private company and he is getting only a meager salary.

(3.) MR.Guruprasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Crl.R.C.Nos.1412 and 1413 of 2001 submitted that already the trial Court did not impose any fine amount on the revision petitioner/accused and no compensation amount also has been awarded to the respondent/complainant. In such a case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused should neither be reduced nor be made to run concurrently otherwise it may amount to only flea-bite sentence.