B N SURYANARAYANA RAO Vs. B C SESHADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision filed against the order of the Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore in C. C. No. 16056/97 and the order of the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge in Cri. Appeal No. 133/99. The petitioner has prosecuted a private complaint under Section 200, Cr. P. C. against the respondent for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court convicted the accused respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- only, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The cheque amount involved was Rs. 1,52,500/ -. The trial Court did not impose the sentence of fine proportionate to twice that of the cheque amount as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge.

(2.) SESSIONS Judge holds that in the first place, an appeal is not maintainable against the sentence in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prosecuted by way of a private complaint under Section 200, Cr. P. C. On merits, the trial Court finds that in respect of the same claim, the complainant has prosecuted proceedings before the Consumer Forum and that the claim of the complainant has been allowed by the Consumer Forum and the cheque amount has been directed to be payable to the complaint by the accused. Therefore, considers that imposing a sentence equivalent to twice the cheque amount is improper and thus dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision is filed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent relied on the ruling of Supreme Court in 1999 SCC 118 to contend that the party is not entitled to maintain a 2nd revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. when he has already exhausted the remedy in a revision before the Sessions Court and thus argued that the present petition is maintainable. It is also contended that the Consumer Forum has already granted the relief in respect of the disputed cheques. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to prosecute a parallel proceedings to have duplicated benefit in both proceedings.