L R SEETHARAMAN Vs. V S MUTHUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred by the complainant challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore for the enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the judgment of conviction dated 27. 4. 2003 in C. C. No. 949/97 convicting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposing only a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, two months simple imprisonment.

(2.) MR. R. ASOKAN, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the order under challenge in this revision is presently for the limited purpose for enhancement of the sentence as the learned Magistrate awarded only a very meagre sentence in spite of the fact that the cheque amount involved in this matter is Rs. 1,50,000/- under the cheque-Ex. P. 1 dated 18. 4. 97. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent/accused also not challenged the impugned order of conviction. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent is owning a cinema theatre at Kodumudi, Erode District. As such, he is having sufficient funds in the event of directing him to pay some reasonable amount as compensation. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the learned Magistrate has not even imposed any sentence of imprisonment and having chosen to impose only a fine the learned Magistrate ought to have directed to pay some reasonable amount as compensation.

(3.) MR. B. JAYARAMAN, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the cheque amount is Rs. 1,50,000/- and the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration even the cheque amount and apart from that fact the learned Magistrate also considered the age of the accused at that time as he was aged about 70 years at the time of passing the impugned order in the year 2003. It is submitted that the petitioner as on today must be aged about 74 or 75. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the revision petitioner has not produced any materials to show that the respondent/accused is owning a theatre and from the theatre getting substantial income. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable one considering the facts and circumstances and there is no ground made out for enhancement of sentence.