9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Reconsideration of a decision in a revision petition against a verdict of guilty, conviction, and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. Validity of issuing a cheque for a time-barred debt. 3. Imposition of an excessive sentence and compensation in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Analysis: 1. The revision petition raised the question of reconsidering a prior decision in a case involving a cheque issued for a time-barred debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The courts below had established all elements of the offense and rejected the defense presented by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the decision in Ramakrishnan v. Parthasaradhy necessitated reconsideration, arguing that a cheque for a time-barred debt should not fall under Section 138. However, the court found that the act of drawing and delivering a cheque for a time-barred debt constituted a valid promise under the Contract Act, making it enforceable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The Division Bench's decision in Ramakrishnan's case was based on the understanding that a promise in writing to pay a time-barred debt is valid under the Contract Act, even if the debt is time-barred. The court emphasized that the delivery of the cheque completes the promise to discharge the debt, falling within the scope of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner's argument regarding acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act was dismissed, as the court found no conflict between the decisions cited by the petitioner and the ruling in Ramakrishnan's case. 3. Regarding the sentence imposed, the court considered the principles established in previous judgments related to Section 138 of the N.I. Act. While the court found the compensation amount justified due to the victim's prolonged legal battle, it deemed the default sentence excessive and not in line with Section 30 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the court modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, along with a reduced compensation amount and a revised default sentence. The petitioner was given a deadline to appear before the Magistrate for the modified sentence, ensuring the enforcement of the revised terms.
|
