Ashutosh Kumar JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
1. Wilson Mathew stood convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') by judgment dated 02.06.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South)-01, NI Act, South Courts, New Delhi, in CC No. 958/1. By order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner was sentenced to 4 months Simple Imprisonment and was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,08,100/-; Rs. 2,05,400/-; Rs. 2,56,750/-; Rs. 1,54,050/- respectively against the cheques in question along with interest of 9% p.a. within one month to the complainant (respondent No. 2). It was stipulated that in default, the petitioner would further suffer sentence of Simple Imprisonment of 3 months.
2. There were four connected cases bearing CC No. 958/1, 959/1, 960/1 and 961/1 under the same name and title namely Sanjeev Kumar v. Wilson Mathew. In each of the cases, similar sentence of imprisonment has been awarded but with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The petitioner preferred four appeals namely Criminal Appeal Nos. 82/2014, 83/2014, 84/2014 and 85/2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, all of which were disposed of by a common order dated 29.01.2015.
4. In the aforesaid appeals, the conviction of the petitioner was sustained but the sentence was modified and instead of sentence of four months Simple Imprisonment, the petitioner was directed to pay the compensation amount (Rs. 3,08,100/-; Rs. 2,05,400/-; Rs. 2,56,750/- and Rs. 1,54,050/-) in each of the complaint case respectively against 11 cheques along with interest of 11% p.a. within two months, to the complainant, and in default of payment of compensation, the petitioner was directed to suffer imprisonment for 3 months.
5. The petitioner has challenged the aforementioned judgments and orders of both the courts below.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist/petitioner that both the judgments are not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Despite the categorical admission of the complainant that the cheques were accepted by him for security purposes and that they were received by him in the year 2007 at the time of handing over of money to the petitioner, the petitioner has been convicted. It has further been argued that if the cheques had been issued towards repayment of loan, it should have been dated for the year 2008-09 and not January 2011; for the loan was only for two years. The courts below, it has been argued, did not take into account the fact that a composition agreement was arrived at between the parties in the Trial Court in which there was an admission of the respondent of having received Rs. 8.80 lacs. from the petitioner. Both the courts did not take into account this aspect of composition on the slender ground that neither the composition agreement was brought on record nor any witness was examined in that regard. The further case of the petitioner is that the exorbitant rate of interest (24% p.a.) on which the complainant (respondent No. 2) obtained loan for the purposes of re-lending to the petitioner does not seem to be probable and which ground is further buttressed by the fact that the amount of loan is neither reflected in the ITR of the complainant nor of the two persons namely CW-2 and CW-3 from whom the complainant (respondent No. 2) obtained money. It has lastly been argued that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 8.80 lacs. to the respondent No. 2 against the loan amount of Rs. 8 lacs.
7. Rebutting such arguments, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the grounds taken in the present petition by the petitioner were neither raised before the Trial Court nor before the Appellate Court and that in revisional jurisdiction, the courts do not normally interfere with the concurr........