'r'iFre' 'fiTf r*j tT C! Petitioner/RevIsisner, CosiEiplssisiant:- indei Jagaimafh Paada S/o Late Shri Nai'siagh Paiida, a.ged about 66 years, R/o 236, Sundar Nagar Raipur, P.S. Deeu Dayal Nagar, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS Asiit Bainarjee S/o SIlri D. BaaaTJee, aged about 40 3~eaj:~s, R/o QuaTtor No. 31, Road No. 3,-V.B. Bihar, Shailkar Nagr Raipur, Ta^sil & District Raipur (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarfa, tnTougti its CoUector Raipui' (C.G.). sx• ^ STITIQN UNDER SECTI l^il.iiS^..,. ""•^St^^g^ -". •>^ Pl-esent:-. Shri Suresh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent No. 2. None forthe respondent No. 1. 1. 2. Heard on adiuission. Tlus petition under Section 482 of the Code of Ci-unmal Procedure, 1973 for quashnient of the jiidgrnent aiid order dated 27/8/08 passed by leamed 2nd Additional Sessioas Judge, Raipur in ciimil'iai revision No. 28/2008 aSirming fhe judgsaent of conviction aiid order ofsentence dated 15/1/2008 passed by leanied Special Judicial Magistrate, Raipur ia ci-iiainal case No. 21/2008 whereby leaiTied Special Judicial Magistt-ate, Raipur has convicted fhe respondeut No. 1 on his adinission under Section 138 of fhe Negotiable Instruinent.s Act, 1881 (in short 'ttie Act of 1881) a&d sentenced '6ae of Rs. -^- £ 8. 2000/- for dishonor offhe cheque ainount Rs. 1850/- aad also awarded fhe coiapensation ofthe cheque amoun.t, Both the order aad judgiiient is chatlenged on the ground that learaed trial court and revisional court has not considered the veiy object aad sprit of Section 138 of fhe Act of 1881 which provides fhe puaishiuent which may extent'2 years aad fine which laay extent to twice the amount of cheque. Court below has taken. lenient view io. awardiag only fine ofRs. 2,000/. Accordiag to facts of the case the cheque amoiint of Rs. 1850/- was dishonored nnrl rrimmal coiuplaiut was filed on adinission of fhe respondent No. 1 he was convicted; aad senteuced fiiie of Rs. 2,000/- aad amount of cheque has been given iu conipensation to the petitioner. Leamed couiisel for fhe parties are heaid. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner veheicien.Uy argued that cozut ought to have iuflected the maxmium punishment of twice of fhe amount of fh.e cheque but court below has taken the lenient view without aay reason assigned. Learued counsel for fhe petitioner placed reUance ia the matter of Rajneesh Afigarwal, Appellant v. Aniit J. Bhalla, Respondent reuorted ia AIR 2001 SC S 18 ia which Apex Court has held fhat onty depositmg ftie amoimt of cheque by the accused does not absolve fhe accused of the liabili<y ofj offence aad deposit could have soiae efFect on sentence to be awarded. On fhe ofher haud, leanied counsel for fhe State/resp^adeat No. 2 supported fhe order and judgment im.pugned. 3 vvs '^K Considerirtg' the •admisslQn of fhe guUty court below has convicted the respondent'N'o. l and sentenced fhe fiae amount m.6re fhaa of amounf'Wcheque courtbelow has not laken •• •7»C?t>i1SS lenient view. Court is not required to uiflect the sentence of -fine of;>inQTC fhaa the amount of cheque same is maximum sentence of fine provided under theAct of 1881, I do not find aay iUegaUty or infirmity in fhe judgment and order impugned warrantuig aay iaterfereiice. Coiisequeiifly, petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. .•ii.^fti'S Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^ t-eaKiiriyi-i.