JAIN OIL MILLS Vs. HINDUSTAN FIBRES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these revision petitions, the order dated 04.05.2005 passed in different complaints has been challenged.

(2.) The only issue raised herein is that accused non-petitioner has wrongly been given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to "as the Act"). It is stated that accused had committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act not in respect of one case but different 12 cases at a time, hence he was not entitled for benefit Section 4 of the Act. It has further been stated that due amount of cheque was received by the complainant petitioner during the period of trial, however, payment of 9 percent interest as directed by the Court below has not been paid as yet. On that ground also, the petitioner wants to seek quashing of the order so as to impose punishment on the non-petitioner.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.