IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2006 Indreshwar Agrawal ` …….Revisionist. Versus State of Uttaranchal & another ……Respondents. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 1.7.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2005 Indreshwar Vs. State of Uttaranchal whereby the appeal of the revisionist against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20.7.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 344 of 2004 has been dismissed. The accused/revisionist was convicted and sentenced for two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,05,000/-. The principal contention of the revisionist before this Court is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction inasmuch as under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the powers before the Magistrate is to impose a sentence not exceeding imprisonment for one year and an amount of fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. This argument of the accused/revisionist is totally misconceived inasmuch as the penal provision is given in Section 138 of the Act itself whereby in a offence under Section 138 of the Act a maximum punishment which has been prescribed is an imprisonment of a term which may extend to two years and the fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque. Admittedly, the cheque which was drawn in favour of the complainant was of Rs. 2,95,000/-. Both the 2 trial court as well as the revisional court have examined the matter in detail and have come to the conclusion that the offence under Section 138 of the Act has been committed by the accused/revisionist. Regarding the quantum of sentence and the jurisdiction, the argument of the revisionist is totally misconceived inasmuch as Section 143 refers to the powers of the Court only when the case has proceeded summarily. Section 143 of the Act on which reliance has been placed by the accused/revisionist reads as under :- “143. Power of Court to try cases summarily. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) all offences under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials: Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and an amount of fine exceeding five thousand rupees: Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code. (2) The trial of a case under this section shall, so far as practicable, consistently with the interests of justice, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing. (3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.]” This has not happened in the present case. The court below has not proceeded in the matter summarily as laid down under Section 3 143 of the Act. Therefore, the benefit of the provision relied upon by the revisionist/accused cannot be given to him. There is no good ground for interference by this Court in the present revision. The present revision is absolutely devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 31.8.2010 Avneet