PRAN NATH TIKKU Vs. RAJINDER MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these petitions raise similar question of law and arise out of the cases having identical facts, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the presentation of these petitions are that the petitioner/complainant (hereafter referred to as 'the petitioner') presented two complaints against the respondent/accused (hereafter referred to as 'the respondent') under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat. These complaints were registered as complaint Nos. 19/4 and 20/4 of 1997/98. In both the cases the respondent was tried for accusations under Section 138 of the Act. The learned trial Magistrate on the basis of the material brought on record convicted respondent in both the cases under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in each case. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the quantum of sentences awarded to the respondent in each case, therefore, preferred revision petition Nos. 4-S/10 and 5-S/10 of 1999 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan for enhancement of the sentence and payment of Rs. 40.000/- to him as compensation in each case. The learned Sessions Judge vide orders impugned in these petitions held the revision petitions incompetent on the premises that he was not competent to enhance the sentence imposed on the respondent by the learned trial Magistrate. Hence, these petitions.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have given an opportunity of being heard to the learned Advocate appearing vice-counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the records.