IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.212 of 2000. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.212 of 2000. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.212 of 2000. Suhas M. Karhadkar ..Applicant versus Mrs. Mayadevi Pardesi & Others ..Respondents None for the Applicant None for the respondent No.1 Mr.Dedhia for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. P.C. 1. The respondent No.1 faced trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned JMFC Court Room No.1, Pune in Criminal Case No.1211 of 1998. The respondent No.1 stood convicted by Judgment and Order dated 17.4.2000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and she was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one day and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for two months in default of payment of fine of Rs.5000/-. This Order dated 17.4.2000 is challenged by the applicant-original complainant feeling aggrieved by the quantum of sentence. -2- 2. The record shows that there was some understanding between the applicant and respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 was required to pay to the applicant Rs.91,000/- and odd and out of which Rs.75,000/- were paid as part payment. The respondent No.1 had advanced a cheque of Rs.16,000/- which came to be dishonoured. Hence this complaint. 3. Nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant though sufficient time was given to the applicant in as much as the matter was adjourned on 16.4.2008 to today and today also nobody is present when the case is called out at abut 3.55 p.m. 4. The learned trial Judge has set out reasons in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment and it is seen that the learned trial Judge has imposed sentence upon the respondent No.1 considering the fact that it was a first offence and that the respondent No.1 is a female and certain payment in excess were made by the respondent No.1. In paragraph 15 of the judgment reference is found to the statement of respondent No.1 under Section 313 where she had stated that she is liable to pay only -3- sum of Rs.6000/- because sum of Rs.10,000/- were with the complainant. In the substance, the learned trial Judge has taken lenient view of the matter. In my view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, no interference is required in the matter of imposition of sentence and the revision is required to be dismissed keeping in view the reasons set out in paragraph 18 of the judgment and the revision is required to be dismissed. Hence the Order. ORDER Revision is dismissed. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)