Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2705 (MAD)

V. Thangaraj v. M. Baskar & Another

2009-07-28

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Challenging and impugning the judgments dated 3. 2007 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Erode, in C.A.Nos.231 and 232 of 2006, partly allowing the orders dated 7. 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Erode, in C.C.Nos.350 & 169 of 2004, these criminal revision cases are focussed. 2. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:- (a) The revision petitioner herein happened to be the accused in the two different complaints filed by the respondents herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, separate trials were conducted. (b) During trial, in C.C.No.350 of 2004 the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the accuseds side, the accused examined himself as R.W.1 along with R.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. (c) In C.C.No.169 of 2004, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the accuseds side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. (d) Ultimately, the Magistrate recorded the convictions and imposed the sentences in both the cases as under:- TABLE (e) Being aggrieved by and disconcerted with the orders of the lower Court, the appeals in C.A.Nos.231 and 236 of 2006 were filed before the I Additional District Judge, Erode. (f) The appellate Court, in respect of C.A.No.232 of 2006, which was focussed as against the order of the Magistrate Court in C.C.No.169 of 2004, confirmed the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the trial Court, without any modification. However, in respect of C.A.No.231 of 2006, which was focussed as against the judgment of the lower Court in C.C.No.350 of 2004, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by reducing two years rigorous imprisonment to one year simple imprisonment and the rest of the judgment and sentence of the lower Court was confirmed. 3. Animadverting upon the judgments of the appellate Court, these two revisions have been filed almost on similar grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus: The appellate Court failed to take into consideration the evidence in proper perspective and simply affirmed the convictions recorded by the Magistrate and also reduced the sentence only in one case and left the remaining part of the judgment and sentence in tact. 4. 4. At the hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would make a supine submission to the effect that he is going to argue and press these revisions only relating to the reduction and modification of sentences and not on any other aspect. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether the sentences awarded as against the accused, as aforesaid, are in order or whether any leniency could be shown. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is working in Telephone Department and if the sentence is confirmed, he would lose his job and that would have deleterious effect on him as well as on his family and as such instead of sending him to jail, compensation might be ordered. 7. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that absolutely there is no ground for showing any leniency towards the revision petitioner, who cheated the complainants in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-respectively and accordingly, he would pray for dismissal of the revision petitions as such. 8. Undoubtedly and indubitably, unarguably and uncontrovertibly in C.C.No.169 of 2004 (C.A.232 of 2006; Crl.R.C.459 of 2006), the amount involved is Rs.5,00,000/-and in C.C.No.350 of 2004 (C.A.No.231 of 2006; Crl.R.C.No.449 of 2007) the amount involved is Rs.1,50,000/-. In such a case, I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot straight away absolve the revision petitioner from the liability to undergo imprisonment. However, the sentence of imprisonment could be reduced. 9. In respect of C.C.No.350 of 2004, the appellate Court reduced the sentence to one year and confirmed the fine aspect of the sentence imposed by the lower Court. I am of the view that for Rs.1,50,000/- imposing two months simple imprisonment would meet the ends of justice, as it is quite obvious that punishment imposed should not be harsh and disproportionate to the crime committed. 10. In respect of C.C.No.169 of 2004 (C.A.232 of 2006; Crl.R.C.459 of 2006), the trial Court imposed two years imprisonment, in addition to fine, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. For Rs.5,00,000/-(five lakhs) liability, I am of the view that awarding six months simple imprisonment would meet the ends of justice, as in my opinion, imposing two years rigorous imprisonment for Rs.5,00,000/-is disproportionate to the crime committed by the accused. 11. For Rs.5,00,000/-(five lakhs) liability, I am of the view that awarding six months simple imprisonment would meet the ends of justice, as in my opinion, imposing two years rigorous imprisonment for Rs.5,00,000/-is disproportionate to the crime committed by the accused. 11. Since one and the same day, one and the same Magistrate delivered the judgments and imposed the sentences, he could have ordered that the sentences should run concurrently, but he did not done so and the appellate Court also did not take into account the said fact. As per Section 427 of Cr.P.C., both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 12. With the above modification of the appellate Courts judgments, the revisions are disposed of.