| The Tax Publishers 2022 TaxPub(CL) 2911 (Tel-HC) THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881
Section 138
Lessee filed petition to modify award of compensation and prayed to enhance fine amount equivalent to twice cheque amount, but there were no justifiable grounds to enhance compensation amount, the fine amount equivalent to the cheque amount was rightly enhanced by Lower Courts, which required no interference, the petition was dismissed.
|
Dishonour of cheque - Petition for enhancement of fine amount equivalent to twice cheque amount rejected by Sessions Courts - Absence of justifiable grounds to enhance compensation amount - Allowability
Lesser issued cheque for repayment of security deposit, but the same was dishonoured. Lessee filed complaint under section 138 against the lesser, wherein Trial Court passed an order of conviction and fine against the lesser. The lessee filed an appeal for enhancement of the fine amount as the Trial Court imposed only meager amount of the fine, wherein Appellate Court enhanced the fine amount equivalent to cheque amount. The lessee filed revision petition to modify the award of compensation and prayed to enhance the fine amount equivalent to twice the cheque amount, which was rejected by Sessions Court. Therefore, the lessee filed petition against the order. Held: Having considered the facts and circumstances and the entire material on record, there are no justifiable grounds to enhance the compensation amount, since the award of compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonour of cheque should be practical and realistic. There are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition was dismissed.
REFERRED : R. Vijayan v. Baby & Anr. (2012)1 SCC 260; Kalamani Tex & Anr. v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283
FAVOUR : Against the Petitioner
A.Y. :
IN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT
A. SANTHOSH REDDY, J.
Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Crl. P. No. 7778 of 2016
1 September, 2022
Petitioner by: A. Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate
Respondent by: Public Prosecutor (TG)
This criminal petition is directed under section 482 Cr.P.C., to modify the order passed in Crl. R.P. No. 93 of 2015 by the learned III-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by enhancing the fine amount equivalent to twice the cheque amount, i.e., Rs. 2 crores along with interest and costs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner-complainant. None represented the 2nd respondent-accused. Perused the material on record.
3. The complainant, which is a company represented by its Company Secretary, filed a complaint against A-1 and another (A-2) before the jurisdictional Court alleging that the complainant had taken a building of the accused at Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore on lease on 15-3-2006 for locating their development centre. For the said purpose, the complainant deposited with the accused an amount of Rs. 1,62,00,000 towards interest on security and the same has to be returned on expiry of the lease period. A-1 and his wife (A-2) entered into a lease agreement with the complainant and the lease was terminated in the month of January, 2008. After settling the mutual claims, the accused had to return the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000, out of Rs. 1,62,00,000 which was deposited earlier. Towards repayment of the said amount, the accused issued cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000 dated 31-10-2008. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. The complainant got issued Legal Notice, dated 21-11-2008 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') to the accused, who, having received the same, neither gave reply nor paid the amount. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same for the offence under section 138 of the NI Act against A-1 and another (A-2) and numbered it as C.C. No. 325 of 2012. A-1 denied the offence and pleaded not guilty. During the pendency of the case before the trial court, A-2 approached this Court by filing Crl. P. No. 7981 of 2009 and the proceedings against her were quashed by this Court by Order, dated 11-11-2011.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|