(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 1318/ 2008 wherein Counsel for the petitioner is Mrs. Sadhana Pathak as in both the revisions, judgment under challenge is similar in nature and the petitioner in both the cases is one and the same, however, the respondent No. 1 in both the cases are real sisters.
(2.) IN Criminal Revision No. 1255/2008, the judgment under challenge is dated 18th of September, 2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Appeal No. 85/2008 whereby the judgment dated 21st of April, 2008 passed in Criminal Complaint No. 4173/2006 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for the term of two years and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- was converted into fine by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 2,75,000/-.
(3.) IN Criminal Revision No. 1255/2008, complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 Smt. Archana Gandhi on 1.8.2005 wherein, it was alleged that a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given to the petitioner on 2.1.2005 in presence of Narendra Dushad and Anar Singh Thakur. It was alleged that the petitioner assured that the amount shall be returned on or before 1.5.2005. It was alleged that in security of the loan amount, a cheque bearing No. 456184 drawn on Dewas Shajapur Gramin Bank, Sonkatch was issued by the petitioner, which was payable on 1.5.2005. It was also alleged in the complaint that on the said cheque, the date, the name and the amount were filled in by the petitioner in presence of the aforesaid witnesses. It was alleged that at the time of transaction, petitioner also assured that if the loan amount is not paid before the date mentioned in the cheque, the respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to submit the cheque for collection. In the complaint, it was further alleged that when the amount was not returned, then the cheque was presented by the respondent No. 1, which was returned with the memorandum of the Bank with the remark 'exceeds arrangement'. It was alleged that thereafter, respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was assured that the cheque will be cleared after a month. It was alleged that the cheque was again presented on 10.6.2005, but the same was again returned with the same endorsement. It was alleged that a registered notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.6.2005, which was duly served on the petitioner on 6.7.2005. It was alleged that in spite of notice, the cheque amount was not paid by the petitioner, but the petitioner committed the offence which is punishable under Section 138 of the Act. It was prayed that after taking cognizance of the offence, the petitioner be convicted.