[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLN.NO.139 OF 2007 Siddhivinayak Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit Daund ..Applicant Vs. Rambhau Bhwaji Hirnawale and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Rahul S.Kate advocate for Applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for the State Mr.Ashok K.Lakhia Adv. for Respondent No.1 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant and the learned advocate for the respondent No.1-original accused. 2. The complaint came to be filed by the applicant against the Respondent No.1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque in question was for the amount of Rs.12,000/-. The learned Magistrate by order dated 14.12.2006 convicted the Respondent under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.16,000/- i/d S.I. [-2-] for three months. The accused was also directed to suffer S.I. till rising of the Court. Out of fine amount, amount of Rs.14,000/- was to be paid to the complainant society towards compensation after appeal period was over. Being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence, the applicant has preferred revision for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the respondent no.1. 3. It is seen that the accused has shown his bonafides by depositing the cheque in Court. The accused also pleaded guilty. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narsingh Dais Tapadia Vs. Goverdhan Das Partani and another [2001(1) Mh.L.J.154 = AIR 2000 S.C. 2946] wherein in para no.14 therein, the Apex Court has held that lenient view can be taken when the accused has tendered or paid all the cheque amount to the complainant i.e. to the holder in due course of the cheque. 4. In the present case, it is seen the accused had immediately deposited the cheque amount in the Court. While imposing punishment, this act on the part of the accused would have to be taken into [-3-] consideration. Under Section 138 of N.I.Act, no minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed. No doubt, amount of fine can be double the amount of cheque. It is seen that the case is registered on 14.3.2005 and the accused has been convicted by order dated 14.12.2006. In this view of the matter, looking to the amount of the disputed cheque, it cannot be said that the punishment is inordinately out of proportion. Hence, no case is made out for enhancement. 5. Application is rejected and disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]