DILIP RAMKISAN LAKHOTIYA Vs. TOTARAM BHAGWANRAO THOSARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sadavarte, learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1. Both the applications are ADMITTED. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the applications are taken up forthwith for final disposal. Both these applications are preferred by the original complainant, on whose instance the proceedings were initiated, challenging the common judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldhana, dated 30.03.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2005 and Criminal Revision Application No. 19/2005.

(2.) The sum and substance of the report lodged at the instance of the complainant is that the accused and the complainant were having business transactions. A cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant and on depositing the cheque, it returned back/bounced. The learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Mehkar by the judgment and order dated 15.1.2005 convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by said judgment and order, the complainant had preferred a Revision Application No. 19/2005 seeking enhancement of the punishment, whereas the accused had preferred an Appeal No. 7/2005, challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to him, before the Sessions Court at Buldhana.

(3.) Mr. Mohata, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the appeal preferred by the accused was allowed on the premises of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to and relied by the learned Sessions Judge, in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, 2008 AIR(SC) 1325 ), which finds place at paragraph 17 of the judgment. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment , in the case of Rangappa vs. Mohan, 2010 AIR(SC) 1898 at paragraph 14 of the judgment, observed that the observations in paragraph 34 of Krishna Bhat's case, may not be correct.