LAWS(J&K)-2021-11-38

YASIR AMIN KHAN Vs. ABDUL RASHID GANIE

Decided On November 22, 2021
Yasir Amin Khan Appellant
V/S
Abdul Rashid Ganie Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dtd. 24/1/2020 passed by the Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Srinagar (hereafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in a complaint bearing No. 29/2019 titled "Yasir Amin Khan vs. Abdul Rashid Ganie filed under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 ['N.I Act'] whereby on the basis of statement made by the respondent-accused under Sec. 242 Cr.P.C (251 Central Act), he has been convicted and punished with simple imprisonment for a term of six months and in addition, he has been held liable to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lac to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is not aggrieved by the impugned order insofar as it convicts respondent-accused for commission of offence under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act and imposes punishment of simple imprisonment for a term of six months. However, his grievance is that the respondent-accused should have also been awarded fine sufficient enough to meet the liability of the cheque issued by him which later on was dishonoured. It is, thus, submitted that payment of compensation of Rs.2.00 lac, to be paid to the petitioner in terms of the impugned order, is only one fifth (1/5th) of the value of the cheque. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 142 of N.I. Act was in respect of cheque issued by the respondent-accused for an amount of Rs.10.00 lac, which, on presentation in the Bank, was returned for want of sufficient funds in the account of the respondent. It is, thus, submitted that once the respondent appeared before the trial Court and admitted the liability, the trial Court should have exercised its discretion to impose minimum fine of Rs.30.00 lac and ordered payment of same to the petitioner by way of compensation.

(3.) In response to the notice issued, the respondent has entered appearance through Mr. Syed Ansar Advocate, but has chosen not to appear when the case was taken up for consideration. The respondent, however, is not aggrieved of the impugned order and has not assailed the same by filing any appeal.