V.Thangaraj vs M.Baskar on 28 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:28.7.2009

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.R.C.Nos.449 and 459 of 2007


V.Thangaraj						...Petitioner in both 						the revisions

vs.

M.Baskar						...Respondent in 						    Crl.R.C.No.449 of 2007
R.Subramani						...Respondent in 						    Crl.R.C.No.459 of 2007
 
  Petitions filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgments  dated 8.3.2007 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Erode, in C.A.Nos.231 and 232 of 2006, partly allowing the orders dated 3.7.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Erode, in C.C.Nos.350 & 169 of 2004.

		For Petitioners     :  Mr.I.C.Vasudevan

		For Respondents  :  No appearance in
					    Crl.R.C.No.449 of 2007
					    Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy 
					    in Crl.R.C.No.459 of 2007

	         COMMONORDER	
       Challenging and impugning the  judgments  dated 8.3.2007 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Erode, in C.A.Nos.231 and 232 of 2006, partly allowing the orders dated 3.7.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Erode, in C.C.Nos.350 & 169 of 2004, these criminal revision cases are focussed.

	2. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:-
	(a) The revision petitioner herein happened to be the accused in the two different complaints filed by the respondents herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.  Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, separate trials were conducted.

	(b) During trial, in C.C.No.350 of 2004 the complainant  examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked.  On the accused's side, the accused examined himself as R.W.1 along with R.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.  
	
	(c) In C.C.No.169 of 2004, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked.  On the accused's side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

	(d) Ultimately, the Magistrate recorded the convictions and imposed the sentences in both the cases as under:-
	
Case No.
Offence
Punishable
C.C.No.350 of 2004
Sec.138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2500/-, in default, one month rigorous imprisonment 
C.C.No.169 of 2004
Sec.138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, one month rigorous imprisonment.

	(e)  Being aggrieved by and disconcerted with the orders of the lower Court, the appeals in C.A.Nos.231 and 236 of 2006 were filed before the I Additional District Judge, Erode.

	(f)  The appellate Court, in respect of C.A.No.232 of 2006, which was focussed as against the order of the Magistrate Court in C.C.No.169 of 2004,  confirmed the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the trial Court, without any modification.  However, in respect of C.A.No.231 of 2006, which was focussed as against the judgement of the lower Court in C.C.No.350 of 2004, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by reducing two years rigorous imprisonment to one year simple imprisonment and the rest of the  judgement  and sentence of the lower Court was confirmed.

	3. Animadverting upon the judgements of the appellate Court, these two revisions have been filed almost on similar grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:
	The appellate Court failed to take into consideration the evidence in proper perspective and simply affirmed the convictions recorded by the Magistrate and also reduced the sentence only in one case and left the remaining part of the judgement and sentence in tact.

	4. At the hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would make a supine submission to the effect that he is going to argue and press these revisions only relating to the reduction and modification of sentences and not on any other aspect.  

	5. The point for consideration is as to whether the sentences awarded as against the accused, as aforesaid, are in order or whether any leniency could be shown.

	6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is working in Telephone Department and if the sentence is confirmed, he would lose his job and  that would have deleterious effect on him as well as on his family and as such instead of sending him to jail, compensation might be ordered.

	7. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that absolutely there is no ground for showing any leniency towards the revision petitioner, who cheated the complainants in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively and accordingly, he would pray for dismissal of the revision petitions as such.

	8. Undoubtedly and indubitably, unarguably and uncontrovertibly in C.C.No.169 of 2004 (C.A.232 of 2006;   Crl.R.C.459 of 2006), the amount involved is Rs.5,00,000/- and in C.C.No.350 of 2004 (C.A.No.231 of 2006; Crl.R.C.No.449 of 2007) the amount involved is Rs.1,50,000/-.  In such a case, I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot straight away absolve the revision petitioner from the  liability to undergo imprisonment.  However, the sentence of imprisonment could be reduced.  

	9. In respect of C.C.No.350 of 2004, the appellate Court reduced the sentence to one year and confirmed  the fine aspect  of the sentence imposed by the lower Court.	I am of the view that for Rs.1,50,000/- imposing two months simple imprisonment would meet the ends of justice, as it is quite obvious that punishment imposed should not be harsh and disproportionate to the crime committed.  

	10. In respect of C.C.No.169 of 2004 (C.A.232 of 2006;   Crl.R.C.459 of 2006), the trial Court imposed two years imprisonment, in addition to fine, which was confirmed by the appellate Court.  For Rs.5,00,000/-(five lakhs) liability, I am of the view that awarding six months simple imprisonment would meet the ends of justice, as in my opinion, imposing two years rigorous imprisonment for Rs.5,00,000/- is disproportionate to the crime committed by the accused.

	11. Since one and the same day, one and the same Magistrate delivered the judgements and imposed the sentences, he could have ordered that the sentences should run concurrently, but he did not done so and the appellate Court also did not take into account the said fact.  As per Section 427 of Cr.P.C., both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

	12. With the above modification of the appellate Court's judgements, the revisions are disposed of.
msk								28.7.2009
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No

To
1. The First Additional District Judge, Erode.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Erode










































								G.RAJASURIA,J.

msk

Crl.R.C.Nos.449 and 459 of 2007

28.7.2009