IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
Tara Chand
V/s.
Hukam Chand & anr.
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1399/09
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition under
Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
Date of Judgment :: 30.09.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari for the petitioner. Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma for the CBI.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge while suspending the sentence in a case under Section 138 of the Act, has imposed a condition upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- along with a surety and a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- . According to the learned counsel, the said condition is too onerous to be fulfilled.
Heard the learned counsel.
Considering the fact that amount involved in the cheque was Rs.70,000/-, considering the fact that the fine of Rs.90,000/- has been imposed by the leaned Judge upon the petitioner, the condition of depositing merely Rs.30,000/- in cash is certainly not an unreasonable condition. The reason for inserting Section 138 into the Negotiable Instrument Act was not only to ensure that persons who defaulted in payment of cheque amount would be punished, but also that the payee would recover his due amount. Considering the beneficial purpose for which the said provision was brought on the statute book and considering the fact that the trial Court is free to impose a condition prior to suspending the sentence, the condition of depositing Rs.30,000/- is neither unreasonable, nor unfair or unjust.
Hence, there is no merit in revision petition; it is, hereby, dismissed.
[R.S.CHAUHAN]J
A.Asopa