- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 23.2.2000 passed by the learned 3 rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1998, whereby, the appeal filed against the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.1998, passed by Sri A. K. Shukla, learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Jamshedpur, in complaint case No. C/1 453 of 1994 / T.R. No. 372 of 1998, convicting and sentencing the petitioner, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below with the modification in sentence. It may be stated that the petitioner was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the Act ), and on hearing on the point of sentence, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 70,000/-, out of which Rs. 69,000/- was directed to be given to the complainant, Rs. 55,000/- being the due amount under the cheque in question and Rs. 14,000/- being the compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C., and the balance amount of Rs. 1000/- was directed to be deposited with State Treasury. In the event of nonpayment of the fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo R.I. for one year. The appeal filed against the said Judgment and Order was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below, confirming the conviction and sentence of fine imposed by the Trial Court, and directing that in default of making the payment of fine, the petitioner shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court below.
(3.) The case relates to bouncing of the cheque for Rs. 55,000/- which was issued by the petitioner in favour of complainant-opposite party No. 2, which had bounced upon presentation in the Bank. Thereafter, a notice was sent to the petitioner and when the cheque amount was not paid, the complaint petition was filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 2, and the petitioner was ultimately put to trial. It appears from the Judgment of the Trial Court below that upon perusal of the evidence brought on record by the parties, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, but he was acquitted for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced, as stated above.;