1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No. 107/2009 Bhaskar Rangraoji Deshmukh ..s.. Sanjay Ramchandra Thorat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V. M. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 22 nd JULY, 2009. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant. 2. The non applicant filed Summary Criminal Complaint Case No. 3659/2005, against the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 5 at Amravati under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque involved in question is for Rs. 40,000/- drawn in the name of the non applicant. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 5 (hereinafter referred to as the learned ‘trial Judge’) by judgment and order dated 28.12.2007 convicted the applicant and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a term of one month. Compensation of RS. 40,000/- was also ordered to be paid to the non applicant. 2 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 15/2008 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. The said appeal was assigned to learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 20.04.2009, decided the said appeal and reduced the sentence so as to direct the applicant to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and the quantum of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- and was ordered to be deposited in two installments. Against the said judgment and order dated 20.04.2009, this revision application has been filed. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant, upon instructions, stated that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has already deposited and further sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been deposited pursuant to order dated 28.04.2009 and that there is compliance as regards order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. This statement is made across the bar. The same is accepted. 3 5. The non applicant’s wife had borrowed loan from Mahatma Fule Magaswarg Vikas Mahamandal, Amravati and the applicant had stood as guarantor. The cheque involved in the present proceeding is for the sum of Rs. 40,000/-, was received by the present non applicant and the same came to be dishonoured. Hence, the complaint came to be file. 6. At this stage, it is required to be mentioned that, no technical defences were raised and the only defence, which was put up at the time of trial was namely, the present applicant had delivered cheque to the non applicant so that the loan can be repaid. The said cheque came to be delivered by the present applicant to the non applicant. The record shows that the said cheque was drawn in the name of non applicant. No specific and candid case was put up in the trial to show that the applicant delivered to the non applicant a blank cheque duly signed. There is no defence to suggest that the signature on the cheque is forged. It is true that a general suggestion was given that blank cheque was given. 4 However, that by itself cannot be considered as sufficient point to show that the applicant came out with a case that the blank cheque was given. It is also not the case of the applicant that the cheque delivered to the non applicant was ultimately to be utilised for the payment of loan in the event of the wife is unable to discharge loan liability. 7. Once the present applicant delivered to the non applicant a cheque drawn in his name duly signed, as is appearing as per record, the burden was on the applicant to show that it was without consideration and that case is out of perview of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The record does not, in any way, to suggest that the applicant had been able to make out a case that the concerned cheque does not fall within the parameter of the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. The defence of the applicant was rightly negated by both the Courts below by giving reasons. I have perused the judgments. I see no reason to take a different view of the matter than the view taken by the learned trial Judge and the learned Additional Sessions 5 Judge. On merits, the applicant has no case and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. Insofar as the question of sentence is concerned, the learned trial Judge had sentenced the applicant to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. This simple imprisonment has been reduced to simple imprisonment till rising of the Court. The compensation amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- as cheque was for Rs. 40,000/- and as the said transaction pertains to the period period of 31.12.2004 and the judgment was delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge in 2009, increase in the compensation by 10,000/- can be considered as proper as some amount more than the face value of the cheque ordered to be paid, keeping in view the time which had lapsed from the lodgment of the complaint and other relevant formalities. 10. Considering the entire record, it is seen that the leaned Additional Sessions Judge has taken a lenient view of the matter and even on the question sentence no interference is required at the hands of this Court to that extent also the applicant has no case to interfere with. 6 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any reason to interfere in the judgments and the revision is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 12. If any amount is lying in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 5, Amravati or 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati being an amount deposited by the applicant, same be paid to the non applicant without any guarantee or the security. The Revision application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE kahale