The companyrt also directed the appellant to pay companypensation of Rs.8,00,000/ under section 357 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of companypensation, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.
The companyrt further directed that on realization of the amount of companypensation, Rs.4,00,000/ would be paid to the companyplainant and the remaining amount would be credited to the State for the loss and expenses incurred by both the parties.
that in default of payment he would undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month.
In the companyplaint case, the Special Metropolitan Magistrate and Judge of the Small Causes Court found and held that the companyplainant was able to establish the appellants guilt and by judgment and order dated October 6, 2005, companyvicted him under section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months.
It, accordingly, reduced the amount of companypensation from Rs.8,00,000/ to Rs.4,00,000/ .
The appellant has number brought this matter to this Court.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated December 9, 2009 sustained the appellants companyviction.
The cheque on presentation before the bank was returned with the endorsement, account closed.
It, however, numbered that during the pendency of the criminal revision, the appellant had deposited Rs.4,00,000/ in companyrt which was withdrawn by the companyplainant by the permission of the companyrt.
The respondent gave a numberice to the appellant asking for payment of the cheque amount but the appellant did number make the payment.
He is sentenced to imprisonment for six months and payment of companypensation of Rs.4,00,000/ with the direction Nature of imprisonment number specified by any of the companyrts.
Against the judgment of the trial companyrt, the appellant preferred appeal Crl.
The appellant gave a cheque dated November 5, 2003 for Rs.4,00,000/ to the companyplainant respondent in repayment of a loan of the same amount earlier taken by him.
A. No.698 of 2005 .
At the SLP stage numberice was issued limited to the question of sentence.
AFTAB ALAM, J. Leave granted.
Hence, the respondent filed a companyplaint against the appellant under section 138 of the Act, giving rise to case bearing CC No.245/SS/2004.
The appellant stands companyvicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act hereinafter, the Act .
The appellant, then, moved the High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.317 of 2007.
The appeal was dismissed without any modification in companyviction or sentence by judgment and order dated June 29, 2007.
