BAL KRISHAN SOM PAL Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated two revision petitions between the same parties, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition.

(2.) Tersely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record, are that, initially, complainantrespondent No.1 Sat Pal (for brevity "the complainant") instituted two criminal complaints against the petitioners-accused, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NI Act").

(3.) Having completed all the codal formalities and on the basis of evidence brought on record, the trial Magistrate convicted the petitionersaccused in both the complaints to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of L 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s 138 of the NI Act. They were also directed to pay the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.7.2009.