- (1.) THE revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore in C.C.No.21 of 2003 for the alleged offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and he was sentenced to imprisonment till rising the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within four weeks from the date of conviction. On appeal in C.A.No.192 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, the learned appellate Judge converted the compensation ordered by the trial Court to that of fine but however, reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and in addition directed that in default of fine, the revision petitioner is to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the conviction and the order effected by the appellate Court in modification of the order of the trial Court, the present revision is preferred by the convict.
(2.) MR. V. Perarasu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial court had although shown leniency in awarding the sentence of imprisonment to the accused, ordered compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- payable to the complainant and the appellate Court while reducing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- held the same as that of fine and ordered to be paid the same to the complainant as compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would further submit that the ultimate aim of the appellate Court was only to direct the revision petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. This court also heard Mr. A.V. Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(3.) THIS Court considered the submissions made on either side, perused the judgments of both the Courts below and the relevant records. On considering the evidence, this court is of the view, that based on the available evidence, the revision petitioner had been convicted and sentenced accordingly and on appeal the conviction was confirmed but however, the appellate Court effected certain modifications as stated supra. THIS is being criminal revision, no question of legality has been raised. With regard to sentence, considering the age of the accused, the trial Court itself imposed sentence leniently directing the revision petitioner to suffer imprisonment till rising the Court. Though the trial Court directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it had not imposed any default sentence on the revision petitioner. But, however, the appellate Court on its own converted the order passed by the trial Court under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to one under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Appellate Court imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and also imposed a default sentence for six months and ordered to pay the entire fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant as per Section 357(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, seems to be erroneous. Though the intention of the appellate Court was only to reduce the compensation amount, which was ordered by the trial Court, the appellate Court imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- additionally in the place of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- while confirming the sentence of imprisonment, which had already been imposed and suffered by the revision petitioner. It amounts to enhancement of sentence. Further, the sentence has been enhanced inflicting default sentence in the event, the revision petitioner failed to pay the fine.;