ORDER
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The revision filed against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 16056 of 1997 and the order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Cri. Appeal No. 133 of 1999. The petitioner has prosecuted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. against the respondent for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court convicted the accused respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, 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 Instruments 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 of the 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 complainant 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 (sic) to contend that the party is not entitled to maintain a 2nd revision under Section 397 of the 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 not 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.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court disposed of the criminal case on 21-4-1999. The proceedings before the Consumer Forum was disposed of granting relief to the complainant with favourable orders on 13-12-1999 about 8 months subsequent to the order of the Magistrate. It is submitted that the order of the Consumer Forum is pending in appeal.
5. It is not in dispute that the amounts involved in the disputed cheques is also a subject-matter before the Consumer Forum. I find that the Sessions Judge was in a way correct in holding that an appeal would not lie on the question of inadequacy of sentence in respect of a private complaint. If appeal was not maintainable on the jurisdictional grounds, appeal should have been dismissed without adverting to the merits of the case. The proceedings before the Sessions Judge were in the nature of appeal the present proceedings does not amount to a second revision. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court cited by the Counsel for the respondent has no application to the facts of the case.
6. It is true that in respect of the same subject-matter, parallel proceedings although technically could be entertained but duplicated relief in both the proceedings cannot be granted. In a situation like this, the Court has to consider the granting of relief in the proceedings filed earlier in point of time, both from the standpoint of filing and disposal. The present proceedings are earlier in point of time. At the time when the accused respondent was convicted, the proceedings before the Consumer Forum was still pending. Therefore, the Magistrate had no valid reason to have imposed a liberal and concessional sentence of Rs. 20,000/- as against the envisaged sentence of twice the cheque amount under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pendency of the same subject-matter before the Consumer Forum is not a criteria to impose lenient sentence. This aspect was not urged before the Trial Court but is urged only before the Appellate Court.
7. On going through the dates of disposal of the cases by the Consumer Forum and the Magistrate, I find no valid reason for imposing a lenient and liberal sentence. If at all the complainant is not entitled to have a duplicated benefit by way of parallel proceedings, the Appropriate Authority under the Consumer Forum Protection Act can take note of the order of Trial Court and can mould the reliefs appropriately. However, the order of the Consumer Forum dated 13-12-1999 is subsequent to the order of the conviction of the Trial Court. Therefore, that cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the petitioner. In that view, I find the Trial Court committed grave illegality in hot imposing the sentence as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the Court below is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay a fine twice the cheque amount, in default the respondent-accused to undergo S.I. for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount levied Rs. 10,000/- to be defrayed by the State towards prosecution expenses and balance to be paid as compensation to the complainant/petitioner.
8. Counsel for the respondent submits that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- of fine imposed is already paid; if it is so, the same can be deducted.
ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO
No grounds to interfere with the order dictated. Hence, no farther orders.