CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Parmanand vs State & Anr.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 20 April 1999 · Citation: (1999) 04 AHC CK 0147

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.C.Jain, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 357 · Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1307 of 1996
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 360 words

M.C.Jain,J.

1.

List has been revised.

2.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, is present. None responds for opposite party No. 2, Learned A.G.A. is present for opposite party No. 1.

3.

I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.

4.

The revision is directed against the judgment dated 1981996 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Criminal Case No. 915 of 1996. The revisionist is the complainant. By the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate convicted opposite party No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000 or to under go simple imprisonmeni for one month in default of payment of fine. The complainant is aggrieved ol this judgment and has come up in revision to enhance the punishment. It is urged that the cheque in question was of Rs. 40,000 and the case having been proved againsl opposite party No. 2 to the hill, more severe punishment ought to have been awarded to the opposite party No. 2. According to the submission of learned Counsel for the revisionist, punishment awarded by the learned Magistrate is very lenient. It is also submitted that the fine imposed on opposite party No. 2 should have been awarded as compensation to the complainant, because he had to fight out the case and incurred great expenditure in prosecution. As per para7 of the revision petition, opposite party No. 2 has accepted sentence awarded by the Court below and has deposited the fine of Rs. 4,000. Para 8 of the revision petition further says that she did not file any proceeding 10 challenge the eonviclion awarded to her by the Magistrate.

5.

Having heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for opposite party No. 1, I finally dispose of the revision, modifying the judgment of the Lower Court dated 198 1996 in this way that out of amount of fine Rs. 4,000, an amounl of Rs. 3,000 shall be paid to the complainant/revisionist as compensation as per Section 357, Cr. P.C., in case fine has aciually been deposited.

Revision disposed of.