IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. REvision Petition No.706/2005 (Jain Oil Mills Vs. Hindustan Fibres & Anr.) AND S.B. Crl. REvision Petition No.707/2005 (Jain Oil Mills Vs. Hindustan Fibres & Anr.) AND S.B. Crl. REvision Petition No.708/2005 (Jain Oil Mills Vs. Hindustan Fibres & Anr.) AND S.B. Crl. REvision Petition No.709/2005 (Jain Oil Mills Vs. Hindustan Fibres & Anr.) AND S.B. Crl. REvision Petition No.710/2005 (Jain Oil Mills Vs. Hindustan Fibres & Anr.) AND S.B. Crl. REvision Petition No.711/2005 (Jain Oil Mills Vs. Hindustan Fibres & Anr.) Date of Order : 18.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Rahul Tiwari, for the petitioner. Mr.Laxman Meena, PP. By the Court:
By these revision petitions, the order dated 04.05.2005 passed in different complaints has been challenged.
The only issue raised herein is that accused non-petitioner has wrongly been given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is stated that accused had committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act not in respect of one case but different 12 cases at a time, hence he was not entitled for benefit Section 4 of the Act. It has further been stated that due amount of cheque was received by the complainant petitioner during the period of trial, however, payment of 9 percent interest as directed by the Court below has not been paid as yet. On that ground also, the petitioner wants to seek quashing of the order so as to impose punishment on the non-petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that due amount of cheque has already been received by the petitioner during the period of trial. The Court below has taken note of the aforesaid and also the fact that 12 cheques were in respect of simultaneously transaction, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was given. So far as the issue of non-payment of the amount of 9 percent is concerned, on that ground, the order impugned cannot be quashed.
In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Court below, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The revision petitions are dismissed.
The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to enforce the order for payment of 9 percent interest by the means provided under the law.
(M.N. BHANDARI),J.
Preety
Item NO.S-5 and S-7 to S-1