HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.175 of 2009 Date: November 16, 2011 Between: Jasti Nagamani … Petitioner/ Complainant And 1. Komarabattuni Suseela & another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.175 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed against the judgment dated 11.4.2008 passed in C.C. No.77 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, whereunder on a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant being aggrieved that the lower court granted no compensation preferred the revision. 2. The point for consideration is whether the failure of granting of compensation having found the accused guilty of the offence is not proper and whether the revision petitioner is entitled for the compensation? 3. The accused has not challenged the order of conviction and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon a decision in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan[1] wherein it has been held that generally in case of dishonour of cheques the Court can consider the proportionate compensation. But in this case, evidently on the basis of a promissory note a suit is said to have been filed and in that suit the accused was contesting. It was also further pleaded by the accused that the amounts were said to have been settled under the agreement dated 11.3.2006 Ex.D-1 and relied upon the evidence of Dws.1 to 4. But however, the lower court has not taken into consideration Ex.D-1. The reason given by the lower court for not looking into it being unstamped and being inadmissible in evidence is not proper, since any unstamped document if it does not require registration can be impounded by putting penalty. 4. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, merely because Ex.D-1 is not stamped, the truth or otherwise cannot be discarded. However, no opinion is expressed on this, since it is a matter of controversy to be decided by the civil court whether the debt amount is cleared or not. As the matter stands, the fact that the cheque has been issued and it was dishonoured is proved beyond doubt and the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is proved. Though the lower court has not given reasons for dispensing with the payment of any compensation, the circumstance shows that there is a genuine dispute with regard to the discharge and since the complainant is not prejudiced as a suit for recovery of money has already been instituted, I do not find any error in the judgment calling for interference by this court. There are no merits in the revision case. 5. Accordingly the criminal revision case is dismissed. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: November 16, 2011. BSB [1] AIR 2002 Supreme Court 681