Judgment:
Oral Judgment:
Heard.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel, heard finally.
3. The revision applicant has questioned conviction recorded in terms of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusaval, dated 31.1.2007, directing the revision applicant accused to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two lacs) to the complainant within one month from the date of the order under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., in default, further directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The matter was carried in appeal No.17/2007. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, confirmed the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two lacs) payable to the complainant, however, directed the revision applicant to undergo sentence of one month simple imprisonment. Both the orders are questioned.
4. The revision applicant canvassed, there was failure of appreciation of the evidence by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The evidence of PW No.1, was illustrative and PW No.1 was unable to quote personal loan account for which the cheque in question was issued. The learned Judge has also failed to appreciate, the debenture bond was not produced along with the mortgage deed, personal loan account of the accused.
6. Resolution of the complainant society is placed on record. Its accountant Shri Prasanna Gandhe is present.
7. Having gone through both the judgments, I find, the evidence is correctly appreciated in tune with the available record and perusal of extract of personal loan ledger of the accused in respect of loan account No.3564 (Exh.82) indicates that the applicant / accused had obtained loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. three lacs) and he has closed the said loan account No.3564 by payment of the entire loan amount. Another loan account No.4034 is at Exh.63. The accused had obtained fresh loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. The voucher dated 29.3.2001 of payment of Rs.16,795/- was produced at Exh.54. There were other vouchers also which were produced. There was subsisting legal liability, as the accused had obtained loan and had issued the cheque in question in discharge thereof.
8. The findings, therefore, does not call for interference.
9. During the course of submissions, it transpired that the matter can be worked out, however, the applicant had payment schedule difficulties. The applicant has deposited Rs.25,000/- in the Court below. The applicant expects to pay amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs. one lac, twenty five thousand), within two months. The original complainant has withdrawn deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac). Hence, order:
ORDER
(a) The conviction against the applicant is maintained. However, if the applicant releases additional amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs. one lac, twenty five thousand) upto 15th May, 2013, the conviction shall not be implemented.
Original complainant is at liberty to withdraw deposited amount from the Court below.
Criminal Revision Application No.142/2011 partly allowed.
Rule partly made absolute.