SATYANARAYAN MOTILALJI MALPANI Vs. NANDLAL SIVNARAYAN BHUTADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Perused records.

(2.) Adequacy of sentence imposed by III Jt. Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Shrirampur on the respondent No. 1 / accused for having committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 is in question in the present criminal revision application.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for the applicant / complainant makes a statement that the respondent No. 1 / accused has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of his conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 passed by III Jt. Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Shrirampur in STC No. 522/1995 on 10/12/1996. Order dated 29/09/2011 reveals that the respondent No. 1 / accused was served with the notice of this Criminal Revision Application and he had filed his appearance through his advocate. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 / accused when the matter is called out for hearing today.