Imposing a higher fine would serve the interests of justice : SC

September 23, 2021 

The appellant is before this Court assailing the common order dated 01.12.2009 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1282/2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka. The conviction of the respondent, ordered by the Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Session Judge, is set aside. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 14.07.1998 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC) at Sirsi. The respondent, though received the notice, failed to respond to the same. Appellant and respondent were known to each other for about 7 to 8 years prior to the transaction in question. The appellant learnt that the property was in fact in the name of the father of the respondent and the respondent was not the absolute owner after cancelling the agreement. The cheque dated 17.05.1998 (Exhibit P2) was drawn by the respondent for the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only). The memo issued by the bank was marked as Exhibit P3 and the postal receipt as Exhibits P4 and P5. The Court of Appeal has restored the judgement of the Learned JMFC in this case. The subject cheque has been issued towards repayment of a portion of the advance amount since the sale transaction could not be taken forward. The gravity of a complaint under the N.I. Act cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or other criminal offences. The sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only) is, however, modified. 

Triyambak S. Hegde  

 Vs 

Sripad