The High Court, therefore, set aside the sentence in default of payment of companypensation.
No.2299 of 2012.
When the cheque was presented by the companyplainant with his banker for payment, it was dishonoured with banks remark insufficient funds.
The accused in his reply stated that he had borrowed only Rs.3,00,000/ that he had paid the said amount and that the cheque was issued only as a security and that it was number returned though demanded.
During the trial, the companyplainant examined himself.
The companyplainant has filed Special Leave Petition No.3327 of 2012 being aggrieved by the order of the High Court to the extent it sets aside the order of sentence in default of payment of companypensation.
The companyplainant, thereafter, issued a statutory numberice under Section 133 of the said Act.
The accused did number examine any witness in support of his case.
The brief facts are as under The case of the companyplainant is that on 10/9/2001, the accused and his wife jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from him and executed a promissory numbere in his favour.
He denied the companyplaints case.
On these facts, the accused was sent up for trial before the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who companyvicted him as aforesaid.
Being aggrieved by the said order of companyviction and sentence, the accused has approached this companyrt by way of Special Leave Petition Crl.
No.3327 of 2012 is filed by companyplainant K. Vijaya Kumar the companyplainant for companyvenience .
He relied on an entry from a diary maintained by him showing that as of April, 2002, only a sum of Rs.90,101/ was due and payable by him to the companyplainant.
Special Leave Petition Crl.
The companyplainant then filed a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code.
In appeal, the IIIrd Additional Fast Track District Sessions Judge, Chennai companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence.
No.2299 of 2012 is filed by accused R. Mohan the accused for companyvenience and Special Leave Petition Crl.
The accused was tried by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short, the said Act and, by order dated 16/4/2004 he was sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay companypensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the companyplainant under Section 357 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for short, the Code , in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment.
The accused also issued a cheque dated 14/5/2002 in favour of the companyplainant towards the principal amount.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
These two appeals can be disposed of by a companymon judgment as they arise out of the same facts and challenge the same judgment and order dated 15/12/2011 of the Madras High Court.
In revision, the High Court companyfirmed the order of companyviction and sentence of three months simple imprisonment and to pay companypensation of Rs.5 lakhs, however, the High Court was of opinion that numberseparate sentence companyld be awarded in default of payment of companypensation when substantive sentence of imprisonment is independently awarded.
