^•"""llk HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BII-ASPUR APPLICANT/ COMPLAJNANT RB8PONDBNT ACCU8ED Cr. M.P. No. 2SO/2008 Mahesh Kiunar Soiii S/o Late Shri Rampal Soni, Aged about 48 years, R/o Ward No, 5, Baghbahera, PoUce Station Baghbahare, TahsH & District Mazhasamund (G.G,). VERSUS 1] 2] 3] 4] Ashok Kuxaar Nagori S/o Qovmd Lal Nagori, A^d about 42 years, Smt, Usha Devi W/o Ashok Kumar Naguari, aged about 40 years, Bofh R/o of Daya S^ar Apartment Limdaaam, Jamnagar, Gujrat P>m 361001 Smt. Asha Devi Naguari, W/o Aml Kumar Naguad, R/o A-3 D^vijay Nagar, Near Kalogaon, Ahenidabad, Gujrat (StateofGujmt). Anaxid Kuiaar Naguari S/o Govind Lal Naguad R/o A-3 Digvijay Nagar, Near Kalogaon, Ahemdabad, Gujrat (State of Gujmt). l^. APPUCATION UNDBR 8BCTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (SB :Hoa?ble Mr. T.P.Sharma^ J.) Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner, Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Shri Vivek Choupda, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL-ORDBR (Passedon 14/12/2009) 1, This petition uiider Section 482 of ftie Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1973 (m short <fhe Codei) for qushment ofthe order dated 12/2/08 passed by fhe % First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in crmiiaal revision N0, 2/07 afiGbnniag the judgment of conviction aad order of sentence dated 27/12/06 passed by fhe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasaniund ia cnmmal case No, 283/04 whereby learaed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund after holdiag flie respondents gmlly for fhe offence puiiishable under Section 138 offhe Negotiable Instruinents Act, 1881 (ia short 'fhe Act3) convicted aiid sentenced fme of Rs. 1,50,CK)0/- each ^i^l^^s^i^ ^ ^ respondent aad also directed to pay compensatioa of total amount of Rs. 6,00000/- to titie petitioner. 2, Judgment is impugned on fhe ground (hat while sentenciag fhe respondents trial Court and revisional Court has not considered the fact that present petitioner is entltied for dacaages as interest under Seotion 117 of the Act aad failed to awarded the compensation of fhe amount more tiiaa the amount of Cheque and fhereby committed aa iUegaUty. 3. Brief facts necessaiy for disposal of fhis petition is respondents had issued cheque m favour of fhe petitioner as amount of Rs, 1,50,OOQ/~ by each respondent aad coniniitted fhe offence under Section 138 of fhe Act, complaiat was filed by fhe petitioner aad Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund has convicted fhe respondents aad sentenced fine of Rs, 1,50,000/~ to each of ftie respondent aad also directed to pay a total aruount ofRs. 6,00000/- as a compensation, petitioner has filed the rcvision on fhe ground fhat trial Court has not considered the claim of mterest dues upon the amoiint of cheque aad has not awarded as a JBne and fhereby committed aa illegaMty, Leanied Additional Sessions Judge has dtemissed fhe revision on fhe ground that court below has not committed aiiy illegaUly is not awardiag fhe interest as a fine. 4. Learaed counsel for fhe parties are heard, 5. Order impugned, copy of the judgment of the trial Court aad copy of the revision petition are perused, 6, Leamed coiuisel for fhe petitioner veheiaenUy argued fhat trial Court is empowered to impose fhe fiiie to fhe extent of twice fhe amount of cheque under Section 138 of fhe Act but the Court below has not considered the most material fact while imposing fhe fine. 7, Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner farther argued fhat ia case ofcoaviction under Section 138 of the Act Court is rcquired to coasider the damages - J caused at fhe in.staace ofaccused/respondents at fhe tlme of itnposition of the fine or daaiages and to award appropriate fijie or compensation, 8. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner placed reUaace ia fhe inatter of8u@nthl Suresh Kumar» Appellaat v. Jagdeeshan, Respoadettt reported iii_AJ[R 2002 SC 681 ia which Apex Court has held fhat after consideriag the facts of fhe case rendtted ftie case back to fhe Court for imposiag adequate sentence, ia order to meet fhe provisions ofunder Section 138 offhe Act In this case tdal Court has not awarded the coinpensation of the amount of fhe cheque, 9, On the other hand, leamed Counsel for fhe respondents opposed flie petition aad submits fhat whUe awardiag the sentence or compensation CiArt is not under ObUgation to consider fhe iaterest accrued on the amount of cheque that would be a consideration m civU cases, Leanied couxisel for fhe respondents further argued that after fhe judginent of fhe Apex Court Act has been amended ia specific provisions for sentence has been provided under Section 143 of the Act aad Magistrate was empowered to impose the sentence of impnsonment not exceeded one year or fine not exceediag Rs, 5,000/-. Learaed counsel for fhe respondents also submits tfaat Court below has not coimnitted aay iUegalily warraatmg ia terins of Section 482 of fhe Code. 10. In the present case Court below hos imposed the fine ofthe cheque aniount but had not imposed aoy fiirther amount to compensate fhe petitioner ia tenns of Section 117 of the Act in accordance with Section 138 of the Act fhe Court is competent to imposed fhe fine which may be extended to twice fhe ainount of cheque fhis is r-riminal case to punish fhe person who had committed aa offence and not to make appropriate provision for his compensation which he otherwise entitled ia civil cases, la case of Swianthi Suresh KunwrfSuprc^ Apex Court has remitted back to the trial h ^' ^ y' ^ Court on fhe ground ftiat Court concemed has not imposed fhe sentence of fhe fiae equal to fhe aiaount of cheque, In fhe present case Court below has adequately sentenced fhie respondent to fhe extent of aaaLOunt of cheqiie aad also awarded the compensation. The case of Suftanthi Sures^ Kunwr (f5upraf is distinguishable on fhe grounds offacts, I do not find any iUegaUly warraxiting uiterference iti exercise of iavokiag extraordinaiy inhereat jurisdiction under Section 482 of fhe Code, ConsequenUy fhe petition is Uable to be dismissed aad it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge