Judgment:
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The revision filed against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 16056 of 1997 and the order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No. 133 of 1999. The petitioner has prosecuted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the respondent for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court convicted the accused respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 only, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The cheque amount involved was Rs. 1,52,500. The trial court did not impose the sentence of fine proportionate to twice that of the cheque amount as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal before the sessions judge.
2. The sessions judge holds that in the first place, an appeal is not maintainable against the sentence in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prosecuted by way of a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the merits, the trial court finds that in respect of the same claim, the complainant has prosecuted proceedings before the consumer forum and that the claim of the complainant has been allowed by the consumer forum and the cheque amount has been directed to be payable to the complainant by the accused. Therefore, he considers that imposing a sentence equivalent to twice the cheque amount is improper and thus dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision is filed.
3. Counsel for the respondent relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in [1999] SCC 118 to contend that the party is not entitled to maintain a second revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When he has already exhausted the remedy in a revision before the sessions court and thus argued that the present petition is maintainable. It is also contended that the consumer forum has already granted the relief in respect of the disputed cheques. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to prosecute parallel proceedings to have duplicated benefit in both the proceedings.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court disposed of the criminal case on April 21, 1999. The proceedings before the consumer forum weredisposed of granting relief to the complainant with favourable orders on December 13, 1999 about eight months subsequent to the order of the magistrate. It is submitted that the order of the consumer forum is pending in appeal.
5. It is not in dispute that the amounts involved in the disputed cheques are also the subject matter before the consumer forum. I find that the sessions judge was in a way correct in holding that an appeal would not lie on the question of inadequacy of sentence in respect of a private complaint. If appeal was not maintainable on the jurisdictional grounds, appeal should have been dismissed without adverting to the merits of the case. The proceedings before the sessions judge were in the nature of appeal; the present proceedings do not amount to a second revision. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court cited by counsel for the respondent has no application to the facts of the case.
6. It is true that in respect of the same subject matter, parallel proceedings although technically could be entertained but duplicated relief in both the proceedings cannot be granted. In a situation like this, the court has to consider the granting of relief in the proceedings filed earlier in point of time, both from the stand point of filing and disposal. The present proceedings are earlier in point of time. At the time when the accused respondent was convicted, the proceedings before the consumer forum were still pending. Therefore, the magistrate had no valid reason to have imposed a liberal and concessional sentence of Rs. 20,000 as against the envisaged sentence of twice the cheque amount under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pendency of the same subject matter before the consumer forum is not a criterion to impose a lenient sentence. This aspect was not urged before the trial court but is urged only before the appellate court.
7. On going through the dates of disposal of the cases by the consumer forum and the magistrate, I find no valid reason for imposing a lenient and liberal sentence. If at all the complainant is not entitled to have a duplicated benefit by way of parallel proceedings, the appropriate authority under the Consumer Forum Protection Act can take note of the order of the trial court and can mould the reliefs appropriately. However, the order of the consumer forum dated December 13, 1999, is subsequent to the order of the conviction of the trial court. Therefore that cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the petitioner. In that view, I find the trial court committed grave illegality in not imposing the sentence as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the court below are set aside. The respondent is directed to pay a fine of twice the cheque amount, in default the respondent accused to undergo S. I. for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount levied Rs. 10,000 to be defrayed by the State towards prosecution expenses and balance to be paid as compensation to the complainant/ petitioner.
8. Counsel for the respondent submits that a sum of Rs. 20,000 of fine imposed is already paid if it is so the same can be deducted.
9. No grounds to interfere with the order dictated. Hence, no further orders.