HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 196 of 2005 National Electrical through its proprietor Mr. Jeet Singhera S/o late Sri Dasonda Singhera, R/o E-28, Industrial area Bahadrabad, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1.State of Uttarakhand, 2.II Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, 3.Navraj Dheer @ Naurang Dheer S/o Surendra Pal, 4.Surendra Pal Dheer S/o late M.R. Dheer, Both r/o M/s Ganga Flour Mills E-34, Industrial Area Bhadrabad, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar, Presently both r/o 1412 Sector-15, Panchkula, Haridwar. ------- Respondents Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, None is present for the respondent nos. 3 & 4, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no.1 &2. Dated: July 22, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2005 passed by the II Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in criminal case no. 619 of 2003 ‘National Electrical vs. Ganga Flour Mills and others’ for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the accused persons (respondent nos. 3 & 4) vide his judgment and order dated 08.08.2005 whereby the Trial Court convicted the respondent Navrang Dheer and Surendra Pal Dheer u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and imposed Rs. 3,50,000/- upon them to be paid to the complainant with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, failing which the accused-respondent no.3 & 4 were directed to undergo one month’s imprisonment. It was directed that while depositing the sum, a sum of Rs. 1,07,000/- shall be adjusted. It is further directed that in default of payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- the accused persons shall undergo 2 years’ imprisonment. 2. None is present for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. I have heard Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no.1 & 2 and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist instituted a compliant case against the respondent nos. 3 & 4 u/s 138 of the Act with the averments that the Proprietors of Ganga Flour Mills, namely Navrang Dheer and Surendra Pal Dheer had taken Rs. 2,07,000/- as loan from the revisionist’s agency. In this regard the respondents have issued a Cheque dated 01.04.2001. The said cheque was sent for its encashment, but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient fund on the account of the respondents. The said cheque was twice sent for encashment, on the request of the respondents. Lastly on sending the said cheque on 29.06.2001, the said cheque was again dis-honoured. Therefore, a notice was sent to the respondents-accused on 11.07.2001, but they did not repay the amount. On the complaint of the complainant-revisionist, the statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the accused persons were summoned by the Trial Court. The protest petition moved by the accused persons was rejected. Thereafter the complainant-revisionist led his oral and documentary evidence. To prove its case the complainant examined himself as PW-1. Statement of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. who, in reply, denied the allegations made against them and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is also declined that the said cheque was issued by them. The accused/appellants did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence available on the record, the learned Trial Court convicted the respondents Navrang Dheer and Surendra Pal Dheer under the Act and imposed Rs. 3,50,000/- upon them to be paid to the complainant with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, failing which the accused-respondent no.3 & 4 was directed to undergo one month’s imprisonment. It was directed that while depositing the sum, a sum of Rs. 1,07,000/- would be adjusted. It is further directed that in default of payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- the accused persons shall undergo 2 years’ imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and order this revision has been preferred for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the accused-respondent nos. 3 & 4. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the sentence awarded to the accused-respondent nos. 3 & 4 is inadequate and the same should be enhanced to the extreme strength of the offence committed by the accused persons. But as per the evidence available on the record and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court has found sufficient reasons while passing the conviction of the accused persons under the Act and sentenced them according to the law. In my opinion, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the accused-respondent nos. 3 & 4 is justified and reasonable and is based on the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 08.08.2005 passed by the II Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. As per the discussions above, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is not sustainable. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.07.2008 NCM: