9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1491 - SC - Indian LawsWhether a jail sentence for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 was not mandatory and it was within the discretion of the Magistrate to award a sentence of fine only as has been done in the instant case? Held that - Appeal partly allowed. The gravity of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other criminal offences. An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is almost in the nature of a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones. The learned Magistrate in his wisdom was of the view that imposition of a fine payable as compensation to the Appellant was sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the instant case. Except having regard to the submission made that the Appellant/ complainant is a widowed lady of advanced age there is no other special circumstance which calls for interference with the order of the learned Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court with an increased fine. After an interval of 14 years it is not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court impugned in the appeal except to the extent of increasing the amount of compensation payable by a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The said amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in addition to the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs already directed to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant shall be deposited in the Trial Court within two weeks from date and upon such deposit being made the Appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the same by way of compensation together with the amounts already deposited if not already withdrawn. In default of such deposit the Appellant shall undergo one month s simple imprisonment.
Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Quantum of sentence and compensation. 3. Appeal against the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge. 4. Imposition of fine as compensation. 5. Consideration of jail sentence as a deterrent. Issue 1: Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 The Respondent was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, for dishonoring cheques issued in lieu of property payment. The Respondent was sentenced to pay a fine as compensation to the Appellant, with the option of depositing the balance amount to avoid imprisonment. Issue 2: Quantum of sentence and compensation The matter was remanded by the Sessions Judge to the Magistrate for a fresh hearing on the quantum of sentence. The Appellant, represented by her son, highlighted the prolonged harassment endured due to dishonored cheques since 1997. The Appellant argued for a jail sentence as a deterrent, emphasizing the need for justice and punishment for the offense committed. Issue 3: Appeal against the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge The appeal was filed by the Appellant challenging the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge. The Appellant sought a jail sentence for the Respondent, considering the gravity of the offense and the prolonged legal proceedings. The Respondent, through counsel, argued against a jail term, proposing additional compensation in lieu of imprisonment. Issue 4: Imposition of fine as compensation The Supreme Court recognized that an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is akin to a civil wrong with criminal implications. The Court upheld the Magistrate's decision to impose a fine as compensation, considering the circumstances of the case. The Court increased the compensation amount by an additional sum, to be deposited within two weeks, failing which would result in one month's simple imprisonment for the Appellant. Issue 5: Consideration of jail sentence as a deterrent The Court deliberated on the necessity of a jail sentence as a deterrent for similar offenses. While acknowledging the Appellant's situation as an elderly widow, the Court emphasized the need to balance justice and punishment. The Court allowed the appeal partially by increasing the compensation amount, maintaining the fine as compensation without imposing a jail sentence, considering the prolonged duration of the case. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment partially allowed the appeal by increasing the compensation amount while upholding the fine as compensation without imposing a jail sentence, emphasizing the civil nature of the offense under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|
