BHEERA RAM Vs. LAXMAN PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these criminal revisions under Sec. 397/401 crpc, are directed against the judgment and order dated 5. 7. 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jodhpur (for short 'the appellate Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2005 whereby the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Laxman Patel against the judgment and order dated 31. 1. 2004 passed by Additional Chief judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 466 of 2004 convicting the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act of 1881' hereinafter), and instead of sentencing the accused at once to any imprisonment, he was released on probation under Sec. 4 of the probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and fine of sentence awarded by the Trial Court was also reduced from Rs. 3 lac to rs. 2. 50 lac, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was directed to be paid to complainant Bhera Ram under Sec. 5 of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, the petitioner-complainant Bhera Ram and accused Laxman Patel both have filed separate revision petitions.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and order impugned and record of the Trial Court.

(3.) SO far as the revision filed by petitioner-complainant Bhera Ram is concerned, the order releasing the accused on probation is appealable under Sec. 11 of the Act and as such the order is not revisable. The remdy of appeal is available to the aggrieved person. In the instant case, instead of filing an appeal under Sec. 11 of the Act, the complainant-petitioner bhera Ram has filed the instant revision petition. Even on merit, the petitioner-complainant has no case for the reason that the cheque amount in the instant case was Rs. 1,60,000/- and the appellate Court imposed a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner-complainant as compensation under Sec. 5 of the Act. Thus, in my view, the appellate Court was justified in awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- in favour, of petitioner-complainant Bhera Ram. In the circumstances therefore, the revision petition filed by complainant bhera Ram is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.