Delhi District Court
M/S Rahul Electronics vs Mr Dharmendra Singh @ Titoo on 12 November, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0614332006.
Criminal Revision No. 23/2007.
Assigned to Sessions/Transfer to this court. 03/11/07/17.04.07.
Arguments heard on. 27.10.2007/05.11.2007.
Date of order. 12/11/07
M/s Rahul Electronics,
Through its Proprietor
Mrs Neelam Jain,
29/97-B, Gali No. 10,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. .... Petitioner.
Vs
1. Mr Dharmendra Singh @ Titoo,
S/o Sh Brajendra Singh,
Proproprietor of M/s Banzara Electronics,
2. M/s Banzara Electronics,
Both At: -
X-1024, Near Shiv Mandir,
Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031.
3. The State. ..... Respondents.
ORDER
1. This is a revision petition against the order on sentence dated 03.10.2006 2 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
2. Briefly stating the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that respondent Dharmendra Singh was convicted by the court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and was sentenced to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner along with Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation charges and Rs. 40,000/- towards interest (total amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-) for the cheque no. 549296, dated 15.05.2005 drawn on Bombay Merchantile Co-operative Bank Ltd in favour of M/s Rahul Electronics.
3. Respondent complied with the direction/order of the Ld Metropolitan Magistrate and submitted the bank draft for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of M/s Rahul Electronics.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Ld Metropolitan Magistrate, complainant/petitioner has filed the present revision petition for enhancement of sentence.
5. I have gone through the written submission filed on behalf of the parties. I have carefully gone through the record. The petitioner has prayed for 3 enhancement of punishment on the ground that sentence by the court directing the respondent to pay compensation to complainant is not proper and the petitioner should have been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- (double the cheque amount). In support of his contentions, Ld counsel has relied upon judgments Thomas Vs Kerala State 2004 Crl Law Journal 1273, P. Balram Vs State 1991 Crl L Journal 166, Mupparaju Nageswara Rao Vs State of A.P 1991 Crl L.J. 549, Mangilal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2004(1) Crimes 177 (SC), Abdul Majid Khan Vs N.M.George & Anr 2002 (4) Crimes 217, Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs Amit J Bhalla, Supreme Court on Dishonour of Cheques page 27, Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs Jagdeeshan AIR 2002 Supreme Court 681, Santosh Vs M/s Gupta Brass Parts Co 110 (2004) Delhi Law Times 160, Varghese Vs C K Ramani 1998 Crl L J 2755, NEPC Micon Ltd & Ors Vs Magma Leasing Ltd Supreme Court on Dishonour of Cheque, page 132, K Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran AIR 1999 SC 3762, Pankajbhai Vs State AIR 2001 SC 567 Space Enterprises Vs M/s Srivivasa Enterprises Ltd, 72(1988) Delhi Law Times 666, M/s A.M Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 146 (AP), 4 Vijaykumar B.Agarwal Vs Govindbhai Dayal Mange & Anr 1999 Dishonour of Cheque Reporter 509, Harbhajan Singh & Ors Vs State of U.P 2005 Crl L.J. 3029, M/s BSI Ltd & Anr Vs Gift Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr II (2006) BC 359 (SC), State of Rajasthan Vs M/s Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd & Ors, 1996(3) Crimes 92 (SC), Gurcharan Singh Vs Allied Motors II (2006) BC 575(SC), Mahesh & etc Vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1346, and Piara Singh & Ors Vs The State of Punjab AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1315.
6. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the Ld counsel for the petitioner and the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act gives a vast discretion to the court on the point of sentence and the Ld Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously. It is settled proposition of law that the court must adopt reformatory measure and penal punishment is the last remedy available to the court of law.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as per the order of the Ld Metropolitan Magistrate in another complaint case no. 2521/2006 was deposited by way of bank draft by the respondent against the cheque 5 amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Petitioner filed the petition aggrieved from the order in that case and the in the court of Ld Addl Sessions Judge, petitioner through its attorney accepted the bank draft and withdrew his petition. Thus, on the ground of parity once the petitioner has accepted the bank draft in a similar case, the petitioner now cannot ask for enhancement of sentence in the present case.
8. However, the sentence order dated 03.10.06 passed by the Ld Metropolitan Magistrate is clarified to the extent that Rs. 2,00,000/- be paid to the petitioner as compensation under Section 357 Cr P C.
9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with copy of this order and revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on (Praveen Kumar) November 12, 2007. Addl.Sessions Judge, Kakardooma/Delhi. 6 IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Criminal Appeal No. 30/2007
M/s Rahul Electronics. ... Petitioner.
Versus
Dharmendra Singh & Ors. ... Respondents.
12.11.2007
ORDER
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Appellant has moved an application dated 02.1.2007 for treating the present appeal as a revision petition. I have gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties on this application. As per respondent, there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code for converting an appeal into a revision. In my opinion, the contention of respondent is without any merit. There is nothing in Criminal Procedure Code to bar an appeal being treated as a revision or vice-versa. In the absence of any specific provision to this effect, a Memorandum of Appeal can be converted into a revision petition. For taking this view, I am supported with the 7 judgments Mahesh Kumar Vs State 1978 Crl L J 390, Mohd Qasimuddin Vs Younus 1983 Crl L J 885 and State Vs Mahender Bhai 1997 (2) Crimes 160. Thus, the present appeal is allowed to be treated as a revision petition. The applicant stands disposed of.
Vide separate order announced today in open court, the revision petition stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back with copy of this order and the revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated & announced in open (Praveen Kumar) Court on November 12, 2007. Addl.Sessions Judge, Karkardooma/Delhi. 8