- 1 - 654 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.REVISION APPLICATION NO.654 OF 2009 Sopan Haribhau Gawade ... Applicant vs 1.Laxman Krishna Gawade 2.State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.K.S.Patil i.b Mr.Prashant Hagare for Applicant Mr.Abhishek B.Kadam for Respt no.1 Mr,S.A.Shaikh APP for State CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J DATE: 16th September, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard extensively. The Revision Applicant as complainant filed proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents. The learned J.M.F.C.Baramati by order dated 25.1.2005 directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.45,000/- to the Revision Applicant-Sopan till 30.4.2005, and to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court. This order was carried by the Revision Applicant - 2 - 654 Sopan in Regular Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge at Baramati, the order remain intact and hence present Revision by the complainant. 2. The parties are in relations. The Complainant has obliged the Respondent to meet his exigencies of purchasing the property. There was no controversy of receiving this amount. The Respondent issued cheque getting dishonoured. The survey of the statutory notice shows non compliance is even after the demand. All sorts of excuses are harboured and perpetuated by the Respondent Laxman. The learned District Judge while hearing the Respondent and even the Complainant on the point of sentence was conscious of the interse relations and even the Complainant had recorded no objection to take a lenient view. Apparently the Complainant's concern was discharge of the liability and not conviction or sentence. - 3 - 654 3. The cheque in question was dated 30.1.2001 for Rs.43,000/- and even after 11 years, the Complainant is wandering for the fruits of the orders. This has happened due to good gesture exhibited by the Complainant to show leniency to the Respondent. 4. The matter does not stop her. After the Complainant approaching this Court in the present Revision, on hearing learned counsel for the Respondent and also the Respondent, he was directed to comply the orders of payment of Rs. 45,000/-. The matter was adjourned from 15.3.2011 time to time. To ensure the Respondent's complying with the payment of cheque dated 6.4.2011 the Respondents made statement before this Court to deposit the amount within two weeks. The matter was adjourned to 21.4.2011. No deposit was made in the time schedule. Thereafter, at the request of learned counsel again the matter was adjourned to 25.4.2011. Same position as the - 4 - 654 Respondents claimed that his wife was hospitalised. The matter was adjourned beyond vacation. After getting breathing time, the matter was taken up on 18.8.2011. Learned counsel reiterated that the Respondents sought accommodation. By way of last chance it was adjourned to 20.8.2011. The Respondent was directed to remain present. On 5.9.2011 costs of Rs.1000/- was saddled to the Respondent. He did not remain present nor proceeded with the matter. It was adjourned to 8.9.2011. On this adjourned date, again learned counsel for Respondent no.1 succeeded to get the matter adjourned for this date. Today, also same request and additionally a new ground that the respondent no.1 may desire to change the Advocate. Hence the accommodation. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent no.1 submits that concession rendered to the Respondent no.1 before the learned J.M.F.C.was by consent. And therefore, considering the plight faced by - 5 - 654 Respondent no.1 there should not be any enhancement in the sentence that has been awarded. 6. The sentence of one day or till rising of the Court did not yield any positive result on the conduct of the Respondent no.1 to discharge his obligation. He openly played with the Court system and perpetuated a fraud upon the Court. Such conduct further need not be encouraged for as a engine of fraud by such litigant. The case that Respondent no.1 all throughout projected is based on falsehood and getting the matter dragged. After going through the judgment, I find the sentence that was imposed on Respondent no.1 was grossly inadequate. Added, to this operate his conduct. 7. On analysing evidence and events, the sentence imposed till rising of the Court is enhanced to (30 days). The Accused/Respondent no.1 to surrender before the J.M.F.C. Rest of - 6 - 654 the sentence is maintained. If the Respondent gets a lesson and pays the amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/- within a week the sentence awarded shall not be executed. Revision Application allowed to the extent above. K.U.Chandiwal, J