[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1290 OF 2007 Pioneer Bio Pharma Pvt.Ltd. ..Appellant [Ori.Complainant] Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Vinod K.Sharma advocate for Appellant Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for the State Noville D.Deboo for Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 12, 2008 DATE : JUNE 12, 2008 DATE : JUNE 12, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant-original complainant and the learned advocate for the respondent-original accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence adduced in the present case. 2. The appellant had filed complaint against the Respondent Nos.2 to 5-accused in respect of the dishonour of cheque of Rs.5 lakhs. In the said case i.e. CC No.609/SS/2007, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai by judgment and order dated 29.9.2007 convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced each of [-2-] them to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default SI for one month. The accused were also directed to make arrangement to honour the cheque of Rs.5 lakhs in default SI for six months. Being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant states that after this proceedings were over, the respondents-accused had handed over four cheques to the complainant and the said cheques are also dishonoured. In respect of these dishonoured cheques, four complaints came to be filed by the complainant against the Respondents-accused. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that taking this subsequent conduct of the accused into consideration, the sentence imposed in the present case deserves to be enhanced. It is an admitted fact that enhancement is being sought on the basis of subsequent events and not events which had occurred prior to the impugned judgment and order of conviction. The subsequent events after the impugned judgment and order, cannot be taken into consideration for enhancement of sentence which was [-3-] imposed prior to the subsequent events. Such retrospective application of law, cannot be allowed. 4. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the accused admitted their liability and the non-payment of cheque amount in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, it is seen that accused have admitted the penal offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. During the proceedings before the trial Court, the accused had also handed over fresh cheque for Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant in discharge of the said liability. It is an admitted fact that the said cheque has been honoured by the accused so also the fine has been paid by the accused. 5. Looking to the fact that the accused had admitted their guilt and that they voluntarily handed over the cheque of Rs.5 lakhs, the learned Magistrate has imposed sentence as stated above. 6. Looking to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for enhancement of sentence. Hence, appeal is dismissed. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]