2013 (2) TMI 369 - HC - Customs

Dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds - respondent complained outstanding interest which is due along with the balance amount - Held that - In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties and keeping in view the law laid down in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu (2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), all the four criminal revisions are allowed. However, without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to recover the amount of interest and/or any other amount. Impugned judgments and orders of sentence are set aside and all the four criminal complaints filed by the complainant are quashed, subject to deposit of 15% of the total cheques amount of Rs.70,63,421/- i.e. Rs.10,59,513/- with the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab within one month from today and if not paid then same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the petitioner will have to serve the remaining part of the sentence.

Summary

Issues:
- Criminal Revision against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Dispute over the payment of cheque amounts.
- Claim of interest by the respondent.
- Application of guidelines for compounding of offences in cheque bouncing cases.

Issue 1: Criminal Revision against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

The judgment involves multiple Criminal Revisions filed by the petitioner against the judgments of conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine. The amounts involved in the cheques varied in each revision, ranging from Rs. 7,06,000/- to Rs. 35,30,000/-. The High Court reviewed the facts and arguments presented by both parties and made a decision based on the evidence and legal provisions.

Issue 2: Dispute over the payment of cheque amounts

The petitioner claimed that the total cheque amount in dispute, totaling Rs. 70,63,421/-, had been paid to the respondent, thereby satisfying the claim. However, the respondent contended that certain other amounts, including interest, remained unpaid. The respondent did not dispute the payments of the cheque amounts but emphasized the outstanding interest that was still recoverable. The respondent filed a written statement affirming the partial payments made by the petitioner and highlighting the remaining balance due, indicating a discrepancy in the total amount settled between the parties.

Issue 3: Claim of interest by the respondent

The respondent, through their counsel, asserted the right to claim interest on top of the cheque amounts paid by the petitioner. While acknowledging the receipt of the cheque amounts, the respondent insisted on the recoverability of interest and other outstanding sums. The respondent's counsel, based on instructions, did not contest the payments made by the petitioner but emphasized the need to protect the respondent's right to claim interest through appropriate legal proceedings.

Issue 4: Application of guidelines for compounding of offences in cheque bouncing cases

Referring to the guidelines established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a previous case, the High Court directed the parties to follow a graded scheme for imposing costs on parties causing delays in compounding offences related to cheque bouncing cases. The guidelines outlined the conditions under which compounding could be allowed at different stages of the legal process, emphasizing the deposit of a percentage of the cheque amount as costs for compounding. In line with these guidelines and the consensus between the parties, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revisions, quashed the complaints, and set aside the judgments and sentences, subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the total cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues raised in the Criminal Revisions, clarified the payment disputes over the cheque amounts, acknowledged the claim of interest by the respondent, and applied the established guidelines for compounding offences in cheque bouncing cases to resolve the matter effectively.