VARDHMAN AUTO FINANCE Vs. SANTOSH KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders, Act 1958 (for short, 'Act') read with Section 372 Cr.P.C to assail impugned judgment dated 7th of June, 2017, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned appellate Court') , whereby learned appellate Court, while partly accepting the appeal of accused-respondent, has extended benefit of probation to her under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 in a complaint case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) At the threshold, a complaint was laid by appellant against respondent before learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur Metro, under Section 138 of the Act and, after completion of trial, learned trial Court convicted the respondent for aforesaid offence and handed down sentence of one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.80, 000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused-respondent preferred an appeal before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, after examining the true purport of offence under Section 138 of the Act, which is compensatory in nature, rather than penal and the fact that she has deposited the requisite amount, maintained her conviction but extended her the benefit of probation by resorting to Section 4 of the Act of 1958.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and order and also made endeavour to examine the true purport of Section 138 of the Act.