- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.26 OF 2000 Dhansingh S.Choudhari ... Applicant vs Amol S.Sawant & anr .. Respondents .. Mr.S.P.Thorat for Applicant Mr.Ashish Sawant i/b Mr.M.K.Kocharekar for Respondent no. 1 Ms.A.T.Jhaveri APP for State CORAM: A.S.OKA, J DATED: 6th July, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The applicant filed a complaint against the 1st respondent alleging commission of offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The amount of the cheque was Rs.2,25,000/-. The learned Magistrate convicted the 1st respondent by passing the following order: Accused Amol Shrirang Sawant is convicted of the offence u/sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and he is sentenced to undergo S.I.for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2,25,000/- i/d of payment of fine he is further sentenced to undergo S.I.for six months. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant pointed - 2 - out that the 1st respondent has not challenged the said order of conviction. He placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs Jagdeeshan (2002) (1) Crimes 265 Supreme Court. He submitted that in view of the decision of the apex Court and in view of section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 the learned Magistrate ought to have directed the 1st respondent to pay an amount equivalent to double the cheque amount by way of compensation. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, he submitted that the fine amount of Rs.2,25,000/- be converted into compensation amount so that the applicant will get some amount. His submission is that the applicant relying upon his son had advanced the sum to the accused who was his friend and till today not a single farthing has been recovered from him. He submitted that the very object of enacting of section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 is defeated by the impugned order. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The learned APP has submitted a report dated 19th June 2009 stating therein that the 1st respondent has already undergone the substantive sentence of three months as well as sentence awarded in default of payment of fine of Rs.2,25,000/-. As stated earlier in default of payment of fine, the 1st respondent was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. - 3 - 4. The order of conviction is of 24th November, 1999 and after undergoing the entire sentence, the 1st respondent has been released on 4th July, 2000. 5. Even assuming that the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is accepted, by enhancing the amount payable by the 1st respondent to Rs.4,50,000/- a sentence in default can be imposed. In the present case, the 1st respondent has already undergone the sentence in default of payment of Rs.2,25,000/- for a period of six months. Even if the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- is substituted by a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- there could not have been a sentence in default of payment of that amount exceeding the period of six months. 6. Considering the fact that in the year 2000 itself the 1st respondent has undergone the entire sentence of period of nine months, no interference can be made with the impugned order at this stage. Revision Application is rejected. A.S.Oka, J - 4 - - 5 -