NAVIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.7.2008 passed by VII ASJ, (Fast Track), Ujjain in Cr.A. No. 125/08 whereby the judgment dated 14.2.2008 passed by ACJM, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 621/07 whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as an "Act") with imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and compensation of Rs.

(2.) ,67,000/-, was modified by reducing the jail sentence to six months, the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court under Section 13 8 of the Act on 11.1.2007 alleging that the petitioner is in good relation with respondent No. 2. It was alleged that petitioner is manufactures of confectioneries and also sweets. It was alleged that petitioner took a sum of Rs. 1, 50,000/- in cash in the year 2004 and again took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- in January, 2005 for the case of his brother. It was alleged that upon demand the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 2, 00,000/- bearing cheque No. 0312462 of Bank of Baroda, Branch Ujjain dated 9.12.2006 and also assured that the petitioner shall pay interest at Bank rate separately. It was alleged that the cheque given by the petitioner was deposited by the respondent No. 2 for collection with State Bank of Patiala, Branch Freeganj, Ujjain on 11.12.2006, but the same was returned by the concerned Bank on 12.12.2006 with an endorsement "insufficient funds". It was alleged that notice of demand was issued by the respondent No. 2 by registered post as well as under certificate of posting on 21.12.2006, which was duly served on 23.12.2006, but in spite of that cheque amount was not paid. It was alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence which is punishable under Section 138 of the Act, hence after taking cognizance and also after notice to the petitioner and recording of evidence petitioner be convicted. After taking cognizance of the offence, learned Trial Court framed the charge, recorded the evidence and convicted the petitioner. Against which an appeal was filed which was allowed in part and the jail sentence was reduced to six months, against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) IN alternative learned Counsel submits that petitioner was in jail w.e.f 7.7.2008 and the jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2008. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced.