IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 131 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 131 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 131 of 2008. WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 132 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 132 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 132 of 2008. Maruti Bhagwan Mane ..Applicant. (Original Accused). Vs. Awade Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd & Anr ..Respondents. Mr Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr Prashant P. Kulkarni, for the Respondent No.1. Mr S.R. Shinde and Mr J. P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 24.06.2008. DATED : 24.06.2008. DATED : 24.06.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, learned counsel for Respondent No.1-complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 2. Perused application and the material available on record. 3. These revision applications are directed ( 2 ) against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2008 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2007 arising out of judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji in Summary Criminal Case No. 1420 of 2002. Both these revision applications involving common parties, based on identical facts, raising common arguments, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. THE FACTUAL MATRIX: THE FACTUAL MATRIX: THE FACTUAL MATRIX: ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ 4. The factual matrix reveals that the applicant-original accused is a Proprietor of "M/s Parvati Packages" and used to have business dealings with "M/s Rahul Paper Agencies Miraj" ("M/s Rahul Agency" for short) of which one Ashok Ramkisan Agrawal was the proprietor. The applicant-accused used to purchase craft paper from M/s Rahul Agency, and M/s Rahul Agency used to have business transactions with one "M/s Awade Pulp and Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd." (the respondent ( 3 ) herein) ( "M/s Awade Pulp" for short). 5. It appears from the record, that the applicant-accused was indebted to M/s Rahul Agency, whereas M/s Rahul Agency was indebted to M/s Awade Pulp. It further appears that as per the understanding reached between the parties, the present applicant-accused, who was indebted to M/s Rahul Agency, agreed to satisfy the debt of M/s Rahul Agency payable to M/s Awade Pulp. In other words, the present accused-applicant was indebted to M/s Rahul Agency, whereas M/s Rahul Agency was indebted to M/s Awade Paper. Thus, the accused-applicant agreed to satisfy liability of M/s Rahul Agency by paying money directly to M/s Awade Pulp so as to satisfy the liability of M/s Rahul Agency. In turn M/s Rahul Agency agreed to give discharge to the applicant-accused. 6. In view of the above financial arrangement between the parties, the accused issued various cheques in favour of the complainant-M/s Awade Pulp. All those cheques were returned/dishonoured with the remarks ( 4 ) "account closed". The complainant issued notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the N.I. Act" for short) and filed a complaint before the Trial Court. 7. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. After examining witnesses and hearing the parties, the Trial Court was pleased to convict the accused, but failed to pass the order awarding compensation. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the present Respondent No.1 (the complainant) preferred Revision Application No. 7 of 2008 which was allowed by the Learned Sessions Judge and directed payment of compensation in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the complainant, whereas the appeal preferred by the Applicant accused against his conviction came to be dismissed by a impugned reasoned order. 9. The accused has invokved revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge his conviction as well as award of compensation. When these matters were heard by this Court on 22.4.2008 the applicant furnished an undertaking ( 5 ) to make part payment which was accepted and taken on record, wherein the applicant had undertaken to deposit Rs. 2 lacs with this Court within four weeks from the date of undertaking. 10. The applicant did not comply with the undertaking given to this Court. Consequently, the interim protection granted in favour of the applicant was cancelled by an order dated 4.6.2008. The matters were directed to be placed for admission on the next date of hearing. That is how the present applications were heard on admission. CONSIDERATION: CONSIDERATION: CONSIDERATION: ------------- ------------- ------------- 11. Having heard both parties in both the revision applications, it is not in dispute that the applicant agreed and incurred obligation and liability to discharge the liability of M/s Rahul Paper Agency towards M/s Awade Paper from and out of the amounts which were payable by him to M/s Rahul Agency. As such, cheques which were given, were given in discharge of legally enforceable ( 6 ) liability. They were bounced for want of funds. Both the Courts below have concurrently held the applicant guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As such, no case is made out to interfere with the view taken by the Courts below, especially, in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. State of Rajasthan vs. State of Rajasthan vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. 12. At this juncture, it will not be out of place to mention that an amount awarded by the lower Appellate Court by way of compensation cannot be said to be arbitrary. Lastly, it is necessary to place on record that the solemn undertaking given by the applicant to this Court has also not been complied with. Under these circumstances, taking into account totality of the facts and circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. Both applications are dismissed in limini with costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. ( 7 ) JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.