Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. M/s. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 26/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2000 in CRLRA 238/2000 of the High Court of Bombay)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 26/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2000 in CRLRA 238/2000 of the High Court of Bombay)
Petitioner: Stanny Felix Pinto
Respondent: M/s. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 26/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2000 in CRLRA 238/2000 of the High Court of Bombay)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 26/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2000 in CRLRA 238/2000 of the High Court of Bombay)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 15, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advocate for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 138 – Cheque – Dishonour – Criminal prosecution – Revi-sion against sentence – Scope – High Court, in revision granting suspension of sentence but imposing condition for depositing part of the fine in court within specified time – Whether such condi-tion valid and legal. Held, considering the amount of fine (Rs. 20 lakhs) imposed by trial court, there was nothing unjust or unconscionable on the part of High Court imposing the condition for deposit of part of the fine.
Held:
In this case the grievance of the appellant is that he is re-quired by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lacs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lacs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. When a person was convicted under Section 138 of the Negoti-able Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine, he moved the superior court for suspension of the sentence. The High Court while entertaining his revision granted suspension of the sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time. It is against the said direction that this petition has been filed. In our view the High Court has done it correctly and in the interest of justice. We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted as the con-victed person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appell-ant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lacs as a condition to suspend the sen-tence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lacs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. As such no notice need be issued to the respondent. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1. Leave granted.
2. When a person was convicted under Section 138 of the Negoti-able Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine, he moved the superior court for suspension of the sentence. The High Court while entertaining his revision granted suspension of the sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time. It is against the said direction that this petition has been filed. In our view the High Court has done it correctly and in the interest of justice. We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted as the con-victed person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appell-ant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lacs as a condition to suspend the sen-tence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lacs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. As such no notice need be issued to the respondent. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
