HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH'AT mLASPUR Petltioaer/Rewisioner/ Coinplainant:- C.R.M.P. No. 546/2008 Jagaanafh Paitda S/o Late Shri Narsingh Panda, aged about 66 years, R/o 236, Siuidar Nagar Raipur, P.S, Deen Dayal Nagar, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS Respondents/Accused:- 1. 2. Amit Bainarjee S/o Shri D. Bauarjee, aged about 40 years, R/o Quartor No. 31, Road No. 3, V.B.Bihar, Shanlcar Nagar Raipur, TahsU & District Raipur (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, through its CoUector Raipur (C.G.). APPUCTION/PETITION UNDER SECTION 4820F THE CODE "OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEaPURE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-. Shri Suresh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Dy. G.A. forthe State/respondent No. 2. None for the respondent N0. 1. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 24/10/2009) 1. Heard on admissiou. 2. This petitiou under Sectioa 482 of the Code of Crimiaal Procedure, 1973 for quashfflent of the judgiaent aad order dated 27/8/08 passed by learued 2nd Additiqnal Sessions Judge, Raipur ia crimitial revision No. 27/2008 afSrmiagfhe judgraent of conviction and order of_sentence dated 15/1/|2008 passed by leamed Special Judicial Magistrate, Raipur iu crinunal case No. 522/2007 whereby leamed Special JuAicial Magistrate, Raipur has convicted the respondent No. 1 bn his i adinission under Section 138 of fhe Negotiable Instrument? Aet, 1881 (in short fhe Aet of 1881) aad sentenced fiiie ofl'Rs. V A.^ 5. 6. 7, 2- 2000/- for dishonor ofthe cheque amount Rs. 1850/- and also awarded the conrpensation ofthe cheque amouiit Bofh fhe order andjudgm.en.t is chatlenged on fhe ground that leamed trial court and revisional court has not corisidered fhe very object aad spnt of Section 138 of fhe Act of 1881 which provides the puiushmient which niay extent 2 years and fine which may exteut to twice the amount'of cheque. Court below has takeu lenient view iu awarding only fine ofRs. 2,000/. Accordiag to facts ofthe case fhe cheque amount ofRs. 1850/- was dishonored aad criiuinal coaiplauit was filed on adiiussion of the respondent No. 1 he was convicted and sentenced fiae of Rs. 2,000/- and amount of cheque has been given in. coinpensation to the petitioner. Leamed couasel for fhe pardes are heard. Learaed counsel for flie petitioner veheniently argued that court ought to have iaflected fhe niaxuaiua puiiishineiit of twice of the amount offhe cheque but court below has taken the lenient view without aay reason assigued. Leamed couiisel for the petitioner placed reliaace ia the luatter of Rajneesh AaEiarwal. Appellant v. Amlt J. BhaIIa, .!' i- ' Respoadent reported ia AIR2001 8C 518 in which Apex Coiut has held fhat only depositing fhe amount of eheque by the accused does not absolve fhe accused of tbe liabiUly of offeace and deposit could have sonie effect on. sentence|to be I awarded. ,,:':'! .-.;.', ^ .; , .. . | On ftie ofher haud, leanied cotinsel for fhe State/resp^ndeitt No. 2 suppbrted the orderaDd jndgment impugned. 9., •/- ^ Considering the admission of the guilty court below has convicted fh.e respondertt No. 1 aad sentenced the fine amount more than;..of' aiiiouat; pf cheque court below has not taken lenieitt yiero. Cpuit is not required to urflect the sentence of fiiie of m.ore fhan fhe^piouiit of eheque sauie is inaximuin -;iSi^<;.:,;.l:y;nlM; ' sentence of fitie provided under fhe Act of 1881, I do not find aay Ulegality or iafirmity ia the judgment aud order impugned warranting any interference. Consequenfly, petition is liable to be dismissed aad it is hereby disinased. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge .Q . ;;.---'<'.l't0<l /us<