Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2229 (PNJ)

Ram Kumar v. E. G. Enterprises

2009-12-22

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Mr. Sham Sunder, J. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.12.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Fatehabad, for enhancement of compensation and the substantive sentence awarded against the respondents/accused. 2. With a view to discharge his outstanding liability, cheque No.721746 dated 27.7.2006, amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and another cheque No.721745 dated 30.07.2006, amounting to Rs. 20,000/-, were issued by the accused/respondent No. 2, in favour of the complainant/revision petitioner. When the cheques were presented before the bankers, the same were dishonoured, for want of "Sufficient Funds". A legal notice was served upon the respondents, but the amount, in question, was not paid. Ultimately, a criminal complaint, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was filed. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, came to the conclusion, that them were sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was accordingly summoned. 4. On his appearance, in the Court, notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, containing the sum and substance of imputations, was served upon respondent No. 2, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. 5. The complainant examined Hukam Chand as PW-1, Ashok Kumar as PW-2 and himself appeared as PW-3. Some documents were also tendered into evidence. 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted the accused/respondent, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. 8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the appellant/accused, which was partly accepted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 18.12.2008, reducing the sentence from 1 year to 1 month, at the same time awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 357(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the complainant. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision has been filed by the complainant/revision-petitioner. 10. 40,000/- under Section 357(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the complainant. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision has been filed by the complainant/revision-petitioner. 10. Notice of motion to the limited extent of enhancement of compensation, was only issued. 11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record, carefully. 12. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Appellate Court, awarded only meagre compensation, though so far not even a single penny, has been returned by the respondents. He further submitted that compensation be suitably enhanced. 13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the amount of the cheques was only Rs. 40,000/-. He further submitted that the appellate Court, after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, was right, in coming to the conclusion that compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was adequate. He further submitted that, no ground, is made out to enhance the same. 14. The question arises, as to whether, the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court, is meagre. It is no doubt true, that in addition to the other sentence, compensation under Section 357(3) Criminal Procedure Code could be awarded. The amount of two cheques, which were issued by the accused/respondent No. 2, in favour of the complainant, was Rs. 40,000/-. The amount of cheques has not so far been paid by the accused/respondent No. 2. The Appellate Court only awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, as compensation, which, in my opinion, could be said to be meagre. The Appellate-Court, was required to award suitable compensation, if not to the extent of double the amount of the dishonoured cheques. The amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/-, awarded, only covered the amount of cheques. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the factum, that though the cheques were issued on 27.07.2006 and 30.07.2006, yet no amount has been paid by the accused to the complainant, I am of the considered opinion, that the ends of justice, would be adequately met, if the amount of compensation, is enhanced to Rs. 60,000/-. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Court, to this extent, deserves to be modified. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is partly accepted. The judgment dated 18.12.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Fatehabad is modified, in the manner, that compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Court, to this extent, deserves to be modified. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is partly accepted. The judgment dated 18.12.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Fatehabad is modified, in the manner, that compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded by it, is enhanced to Rs. 60,000/-. Revision partly accepted.