Court No. - 55 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42612 of 2018 Applicant :- Safi Abbas Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Srestha Pandey,Ashok Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed seeking an order observing that the punishment order undergone in complaint case no. 1255 of 2008 may also be treated to be punishment order undergone in complaint case no. 1256 of 2008 dated 3.8.2010 and 6.11.2018 respectively under Section 138 of N.I. Act and further permit the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 3 Lacs in complaint case no. 1256 of 2008.
Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 filed complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act with the allegations that for purchasing a land opposite party no. 2 gave Rs. 4,18,000/- to the applicant which were returned to the opposite party no. 2 by issuing two cheques of Rs. 2 Lacs and Rs. 2,18,000/- and on the presentation of the aforesaid cheques same were dishonoured showing insufficient funds and, thereafter, opposite party no. 2 filed separate complaints for each cheques which were registered as complaint case no. 1255 of 2008 and 1256 of 2008. Both the complaints were heard together and applicant was convicted vide order dated 26.5.2010 and punishment order was passed vide order dated 3.8.2010. Being aggrieved with the said orders, applicant filed appeal no. 212 of 2010 and 213 of 2010 and both the appeals were heard together and were dismissed vide order dated 12.5.2017. Thereafter, against the order dated 12.5.2017, applicant filed criminal revision no. 2016 of 2017 before this Court and same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.6.2017. Against the order dated 22.6.2017, applicant filed SLP (Criminal) No. 6025 of 2017, which was also dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2017 with the observation that the application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. may be disposed of expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the cases arises out of same transaction between the parties and, as such, the punishment was supposed to commence from the same date in both the cases, however, in absence of any order the same have not been connected. The said fact could not be mentioned before the High Court since one of the revision remained defective and is pending and another revision was decided. The said fact also could not be mentioned before Hon'ble Supreme Court as the aforesaid SLP was filed against the order of one revision. Learned counsel submits that vide order dated 3.8.2010 in both the complaint case the applicant was sentenced imprisonment of one year with a fine of Rs. 3 Lacs to be deposited within a period of one year and in case of default the applicant will be liable to undergo additional simple imprisonment of six months. Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid background the applicant filed an application dated 31.10.2018 in complaint case no. 1255 of 2008 with a prayer to deposit Rs. 3 Lacs which is allowed on 1.11.2018. Thereafter, the applicant filed another complaint in complaint case no. 1256 of 2008 with a prayer to observe that the punishment order undergone in complaint case no. 1255 of 2018 may also be treated to be punishment undergone in complaint case no. 1256 of 2008 and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 6.11.2018 with the observation that the matter travelled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court without raising this point. Learned counsel submits that considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court should come to rescue the applicant.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant by contending that the applicant has deliberately issued the cheques of the accounts wherein no sufficient balance to encash the same and there are two separate cases against him and in both the cases separate sentences have been passed and the matter was travelled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court but this fact has not been raised and, as such, there is no merit in the present application and same is liable to be rejected by this Court.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the orders impugned as well averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any legal infirmity in the order impugned or any ground, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the application is bereft of merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018
Shekhar [Chandra Dhari Singh, J.]