(R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.)
Sam Industries _____________________________________ Appellant;
v.
R. Ramanathan ____________________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7426 of 2018], decided on January 8, 2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the High Court allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 123/2006 filed by the respondent against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Salem in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2004.
3. The respondent had filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Salem alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. It was stated that a cheque dated 05.02.2000 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) towards repayment of a loan was returned unpaid on the ground of âinsufficient fundsâ.
4. The complaint filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Salem. The accused was sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment and was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to the complainant.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – II, Salem. The said appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted.
6. The respondent-complainant filed a Criminal Appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal.
7. Before the High Court, the appellant argued that statutory notice had been issued on 11.03.2000 though the cheque had been dishonoured on 14.02.2000. The notice was thus time barred, the same having been issued after expiry of the statutory period of 15 days. Rejecting the contention that the notice had been issued after expiry of the statutory period of 15 days, the High Court observed that the âdishonour of chequeâ had been communicated to the respondent only on 26.02.2000 and, as such, notice was within time.
8. The High Court while reversing the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and affirming the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court enhanced the compensation to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as against Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Trial Court.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction.
11. An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sentence may be modified by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent also submits that sentence may be modified by enhancing the compensation payable to the respondent.
13. Based on the submissions of the respective parties, we modify the sentence by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of six monthsâ and imposing a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- payable to the respondent by way of compensation. The compensation payable to the respondent is thus enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 50,000/-, in addition to the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as directed to be paid by the High Court.
14. It is submitted that the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Court. The balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be deposited within six weeks from date.
15. It will be open to the respondent to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as also the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- already deposited by the appellant.
16. The criminal appeal is thus partly allowed.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7426/2018
M/s. Sam Industries _________________________________ Petitioner
v.
R. Ramanathan ___________________________________ Respondent
(IA 120568/2018 – For exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment; and, IA No. 120572/2018 – For exemption from filing OT)
Date : 08-01-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR
Mr. Ashish Kr. Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv.
Mr. Babul Kumar, Adv.
Mr. M. Ram P., Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. C. N. Sree Kumar, AOR
Mr. Amith Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Malavika B. Pillai, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
17. Leave granted.
18. The criminal appeal is partly allowed, in terms of the signed order.
19. Pending application(s), shall stand disposed of.
âââ
