2012 (8) TMI 1200 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Competence of the Court to award compensation beyond the extent of the fine imposed.
3. Legality of imposing a sentence for default in payment of compensation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The accused challenged the judgment dated 21.5.2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, which modified the conviction and sentence by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari. The initial sentence was three months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, which was modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, maintaining the fine and adding compensation of Rs. 5 lacs. The accused argued that the cheque was issued as security, not for a legally recoverable debt. The Court found the evidence sufficient to prove the cheque was for a legally recoverable debt and upheld the conviction u/s 138 of the Act.

Issue 2: Competence of the Court to award compensation beyond the extent of the fine imposed.

The accused contended that the Court was not competent to award compensation beyond the fine imposed. The Court clarified that compensation can be awarded under Section 357(3) of the Code independently of the fine. The appellate Court's award of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation was affirmed, but the fine of Rs. 5000/- was quashed as it was contrary to the provisions of Section 357(1) and (3) of the Code.

Issue 3: Legality of imposing a sentence for default in payment of compensation.

The Court addressed the legality of imposing a sentence for default in payment of compensation. It was held that while Section 357(3) of the Code does not explicitly provide for a default clause, the Supreme Court has established that Courts can impose a sentence for default in payment of compensation. The appellate Court's direction for imprisonment in default of payment of compensation was upheld.

Conclusion:

The Court maintained the conviction u/s 138 of the Act and the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The fine of Rs. 5000/- was quashed, but the compensation of Rs. 5 lacs and the default sentence of six months S.I. were affirmed. The complainant's request for double the cheque amount as compensation was dismissed.