1 CRA-304-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINALREVISION APPLICATION NO. 304 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 177 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2581 OF 2010 CRA NO.304/10 & CR. APPLICATION NO.177/10 Mr. Vijay Baburam Gupta ... Applicant/appellant accused vs. M/s. Sagun Impex & Anr. ... Respondents None for the applicant. Ms. Mallika A.Ingale, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Ms. U.V.Kejriwal, APP, for the State - respondent No.2. with CRIMINAL W.P. NO. 2581 PF 2010 M/s. Sagun Impex ... Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Ms. Mallika A.Ingale,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Ms. U.V.Kejriwal, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 14th March, 2011. P.C. Rule in Writ Petition No.2581/2010. 2 CRA-304-10.sxw 1. The Writ Petition is filed by the original complainant for enhancement of sentence. The revision application is filed by the original accused challenging the conviction and sentence. When the matters are called, none appears for the original accused. Heard the learned Counsel for the complainant/petitioner. 2. It appears that the parties had transactions whereby the complainant had sold certain goods to the respondent/accused. Some payment was made and for balance amount, different cheques were issued. The present case is based on two cheques. One was dated 30.11.2002 for the amount of Rs.1 lakh and another cheque was dated 25.1.2003 for the amount of Rs.1,18,265/-. Both these cheques were presented for encashment but were dishonoured. Inspite of the notice payment was not made by the accused. 3. The complaint was based on the above referred two cheques for total amount of Rs.218,265/-.. After hearing the applicant, the learned Magistrate awarded the sentence of fine of Rs.4 lakhs and directed that out of fine amount, an an amount of Rs. 1 lakh be paid to the complainant and balance be credited to the State. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed, but the order about payment of compensation out of the fine amount was modified by the Sessions Court. The 3 CRA-304-10.sxw Sessions Court directed that out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.3 lakh be paid to the complainant as compensation. The Writ petition is filed on the ground that the Courts below had not imposed any substantive sentence of imprisonment and secondly the compensation amount is not sufficient. 4. Under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused may be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. The trial Court awarded the fine of Rs.4 lakh, which is slightly less than twice the amount of the cheque. Sec.138 does not mandate nor it is compulsory that sentence of imprisonment should be awarded. In view of this, I find no substance in the contention that the sentence awarded is not sufficient. The Sessions Court has modified the order of the trial Court and out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs. 3 lakh is directed to be paid to the complainant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State has not suffered any loss and therefore substantial amount should have been paid to the petitioner/complainant as compensation. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appears for the accused/respondent. In my opinion, the compensation amount to be paid out of the fine amount may be increased. That will not adversely affect the accused in any manner. 4 CRA-304-10.sxw 5. Therefore, the petition is partly allowed. Out of the fine amount of Rs.4 lakh, if recovered, a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- be paid to the petitioner/complainant. Rule made absolute accordingly. 6. Revision Application No.304/20 stands dismissed in default. As the revision application itself is dismissed, the Criminal Application No.177/2010 for delay also stands disposed of accordingly. The trial Court shall proceed to take action for recovery of the fine amount as per law. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)