HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR APPLICANT/ COMPLAINANT VERSUS Cr. M.P. No. 244/2008 Mahesh Kumar Soni S/o Late Shri Rampal Soni, Aged about 48 years, R/o Ward No. 5, Baghbahera, Police Station Baghbahare, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.). RESPQNDENT ACCUSED Anand Kumar Nagori S/o Govind Lal Nagori, Aged about 36 years, Proprietor Shanti Corporation, 3-Dayasagar Apartment, Limda Lane, Jamnagar Gujrat, At presentAddress-A-3, Digvijay Nagar, Near Kali Gaon, Ahemdabad Gujrat. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Shri B.P. Sharnia, Advocate with Shri Vivek Choupda, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 14/12/2009) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code?) for qushment of the order dated 12/2/08 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in criminal revision N0. 08/2007 affirming the judgmenf of conviction and order of sentence dated \/1/2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magisfrate, Mahasamund in criminal case No. 276/2004 whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund after holding the respondents guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short <the Act?) convicted and sentenced fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent Judgment is impugned on the ground that while sentencing the respondent trial Court and revisional Court has not considered-the fact that present petitioner is entitled for damages as interest under Section 1 17 of the Act and failed to awarded the compensation of the amount more than the amount of Cheque and thereby committed an illegality. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition is respondent had issued cheque in favour of the petitioner as amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- by respondent and committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act, complaint was filed by the petitioner and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund has convicted the respondent and sentenced fine of Rs. ^ 1,50,000/-. Petitioner has filed the revision on the ground that trial Court las not considered the claim of interest dues upon the amount of cheque and has not awarded as a fine and thereby committed an illegality. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision on the ground that court below has not committed any illegalily is not awarding the interest as a fine. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 5. Order impugned, copy of the judgment of the trial Court and copy of the revision petition are perused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that trial Court is empowered to impose the fine to the extent of twice the amount of cheque ^der Section 138 of the Act but the Court below has not considered the most material fact while imposing the fine. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in case of conviction under Section 138 of the Act Court is required to consider the damages caused at the instance of accused/respondent at the time of imposition of the fine or damages and to award appropriate fine or.compensation. 8, Leamed counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Sueanthi Suresh Kumar, Aopellant V. Jaedeeshan, Resoondent reported in_AIR 2002 SG 681 in which Apex Court has held that after considering the facts of the case remitted the case back to the Court for imposing adequate ^v- -3>- sentence, in order tomeet the provisions of under Section 138 ofthe Act. In this case trial Court has not awarded the compensation of the amount of the cheque. On the Qther hand, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the petitipn and submits that while awarding the sentence or coiripensation Court is not under Obligation t6 consider the interest accrued on the amount of cheque that would be a consideration in civil cases. Learned counsel for the ^ respondent further argued that after the judgment of the Apex Court Act xhas been amended in specific provisions for sentence has been provided under Section 143 of the Act and Magistrate was empowered to impose the sentence of imprisonment not exceeded one year or fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that Court below has not committed any illegality warranting in terms of Section 482 of the Code. 10. In the present case Court below has imposed the fine of the cheque amount but had not imposed any further amount to compensate the petitioner in terms of Section 117 of the Act in accordance with Section 138 of the Act the Court is competent to impose the fine which may be extended twice the ^mount of cheque this is criminal case to punish the person who had commitfed an offence and not to make appropriate provision for his compensation which he othenvise entitled in civil cases. In case of Sucianthi Suresh Kumar (Supra) Apex Court has remitted back to the trial Court on the ground that Court concerned has not imposed the sentence of the fine equal to the amount ofcheque. In the present case Court below has adequately sentenced the respondent to the extent of amount of cheque and also awarded the compensation. The case of Supanthi Suresh Kuvnar (Supra) is distinguishable on the grounds of facts, I do not find any illegality warranting interference in exercise of invoking extraordinary inherent ^^ ^.^ jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Consequently the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge ?:\h., < <l/