V THANGARAJ Vs. M BASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging and impugning the judgments dated 8.3.2007 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Erode, in C.A.Nos.231 and 232 of 2006. partly allowing the orders dated 3.7.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.III. Erode, in C.C.Nos.350 & 169 of 2004, these criminal revision cases are focused.

(2.) A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would ran thus:- (a) The revision petitioner herein happened to be the accused in the two different complaints filed by the respondents herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, separate trials were conducted. (b) During trial, in C.C.No.350 of 2004 the complainant examined himself as RW.1 and Exs.P1to P8 were marked. On the accused's side, the accused examined himself as R.W.1along with R.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. (c) In,CC.No.169 of 2004, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the accused's side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. (d) Ultimately, the Magistrate recorded the convictions and imposed the sentences in both the cases as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_707_CRLJ_2010Html1.htm</FRM> (e) Being aggrieved by and disconcerted with the orders of the lower Court, the appeals in C.A.Nos.231 and 236 of 2006 were filed before the I Additional District Judge, Erode. (f) The appellate Court, in respect of C.A.No.232 of 2006, which was focussed as against the order of the Magistrate Court in C.C.No.169 of 2004, confirmed the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the trial Court, without any modification. However, in respect of C.A.No.231 of 2006, which was focussed as against the judgment of the lower Court in C.C.No.350 of 2004, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by reducing two years rigorous imprisonment to one year simple imprisonment and the rest of the judgment and sentence of the lower Court was confirmed.

(3.) Animadverting upon the judgments of the appellate Court, these two revisions have been filed almost on similar grounds, the gist and kernal of them would ran thus: The appellate Court failed to take into consideration the evidence in proper perspective and simply affirmed the convictions recorded by the Magistrate and also reduced the sentence only in one case and left the remaining part of the judgment and sentence intact.