Karnataka High Court
M/S Micro Tech Agro (P) Ltd., vs The Karnataka State on 25 June, 2014
1 Crl.RPs 158 cw. 157/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.158 OF 2012
C/w.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.157 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/s Micro Tech Agro (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director:
M.J. Nagaraj,
Having its Registered Office
at Special Plot No.1D,
KIADB Industrial Area,
Lokikere Road, Davangere. ... PETITIONER/S
[COMMON IN BOTH THE PETITIONS]
[By Sri. Ashwin S. Halady, Adv.]
AND:
The Karnataka State
Financial Corporation,
Situated at S. Nijalingappa Layout,
Davanagere,
Rep. by its Branch Manager. ... RESPONDENT/S
[COMMON IN BOTH THE PETITIONS]
[By Sri. Bipin Hegde, Adv.]
***
2 Crl.RPs 158 cw. 157/12
These Crl.RPs. are filed u/Sections 397 r/w.
401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the Judgments dt.
13.10.2011 passed by the C/c. III Addl. Sr.C.J. &
J.M.F.C., Davanagere in C.C. Nos.1531/2009 and
1535/2009 respectively confirmed by the Judgments
dt. 01.02.2012 in Crl.A. Nos.142/2011 and 141/2011
respectively by the I Addl. Dist., and S.J.,
Davanagere.
These Crl.RPs. coming on for Final Disposal,
this day the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged its conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act" for short], confirmed in the appeals.
2. The facts reveal that the respondent-KSFC filed a complaint alleging advancement of the loan and issuance of the cheque by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.20,00,000-00 dated 15.07.2007 in one case and Rs.30,00,000-00 in the other case. Both the cheques were presented and they returned with endorsement of "insufficient funds" and therefore, 3 Crl.RPs 158 cw. 157/12 the respondent-KSFC issued notice and demanded the said sum.
As there was no compliance, complaints came to be filed before the trial Court in C.C. Nos.1531/2009 and 1535/2009. After recording the evidence, the petitioner was convicted and was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year in C.C. No.1535/2009 in addition to pay a fine and compensation and simple imprisonment for 6 months in C.C. No.1531/2009 in addition to pay a fine and compensation.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused preferred appeals before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No.141/2011 and Crl. A. No.142/2011. Both the appeals were dismissed affirming the conviction and also the sentence. Aggrieved by the orders, the present revision petitions have been preferred.
4 Crl.RPs 158 cw. 157/12
3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
4. As could be seen from the impugned Judgment and Orders, the petitioner has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000-00 in addition to compensation of Rs.20,00,000-00 in C.C. No.1531/2009, whereas simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000-00 in addition to compensation of Rs.37,00,000-00 in C.C. No.1535/2009. These conviction and sentence orders have been confirmed by the first appellate Court.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that so far as the compensation of Rs.20,00,000-00 and Rs.37,00,000-00 awarded by the Court are concerned, the payment has been made and a memo dated 25.06.20014 to that effect has been filed to this Court today. Learned counsel for 5 Crl.RPs 158 cw. 157/12 the respondent also admits the payment of the compensation in both the cases. What remains to the petitioner is to pay a fine of Rs.5,000-00 in C.C. No.1535/2009 and Rs.3,000-00 in C.C. No.1531/2009. So far as the imprisonment is concerned, as the compensation has been paid and the petitioner has to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court, I do not think that the sentence of imprisonment is essential. Taking into consideration the nature of the offence, the punishment provided and the fact that the petitioner has paid the compensation amount as per the orders in both the cases, the sentence of imprisonment for one year in C.C. No.1535/2009 and 6 months in C.C. No.1531/2009 confirmed in the appeals have to be set aside.
Consequently, the revision petitions are allowed in part. The substantial sentence of imprisonment ordered in both the cases are set aside, affirming the fine and the compensation. 6 Crl.RPs 158 cw. 157/12 As the petitioner has paid the compensation amount to the respondent-KSFC., which is admitted by learned counsel for the respondent-KSFC., the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine of Rs.3,000-00 and Rs.5,000-00 respectively in the trial Court, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in each case.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Ksm*